A historical survey up to Chomsky and Tesnière
Prepublication draft
November 27, 2024
[1.1] Slowly, during the 17th and 18th Century, a new terminological amalgamation arose, combining terms from Aristotelian logic with concepts from the descriptive grammatical tradition. The result of this mixture are the contemporary terms “subject”, “object” and “predicate”, which seem to be first used in the modern sense at the start of the 19th Century. The history of the emergence of these terms deserves a detailed investigation in it’s own right (e.g. Forsgren 1985; Forsgren 1992– for the German grammatical tradition). The following summary is but a very short and strongly simplified overview of this terminological development. The underlying impetus for this development appears to be an ambition on behalve of grammarians to insert more “logic” into their analyses, or, in more modern terms, to create general terms for grammatical functions on top of the description of the grammatical form of linguistic elements.
[1.2] Everything starts with Aristoteles. First, the term “subject”, through Latin subiectum, is a calque from Greek ὑποκείμενον ‘that which lies beneath’. This term is one of the central tenets of Aristotelian philosophy of substance. Similarly, the term “predicate” is derived from Latin praedicatum, which is a calque from Greek κατηγορούμενον ‘that which is being spoken against’. These two elements, subject and predicate, are the building blocks of the Aristotelian (and medieval) logical proposition, not of a linguistic sentence. Linguistically, a Greek λόγος ‘sentence’ consists of ὄνομᾰ ‘noun’ and ῥῆμα ‘verb’. Although Aristotle describes a third element linking the logical terms ὑποκείμενον ‘subject’ and κατηγορούμενον ‘predicate’, he does not use a specific term for this third element. Moro (2017: 35) argues that only with Abelard in the 12th Century a specific term is introduced for this link, namely the Latin term copula. Separataly, the term object, from Latin objectum, is a calque from Aristotle’s ἀντικείμενον ‘that which lies opposite’. This term does not play any role in classical logical analysis, it only figures as a philosophical concept for observed reality.
[1.3] In the ensuing centuries, the Latin terms subiectum, praedicatum and copula become a staple in medieval logic, specifically in the analysis of the syllogism. In contrast, these terms are never used for grammatical analysis of language. For example, the 13th Century scholastic grammarians (the “Modists”) use suppositum and appositum approximately in the sense of the Greek ὄνομᾰ and ῥῆμα, respectively (Robins 1980: 234).
[1.4] In the 17th Century, the Grammaire Générale et Raisonnée from 1660 by Antoine Arnauld and Claude Lancelot is probably one of the first occurences of new terminology. In their attempt to link language to logic and thought, there is a first glimpse of a terminological confluence of Aristotelian logic and the grammatical tradition, as the french word sujet ist used, although alongside attribut and not yet something like prédicat:
La connoissance de la nature du Verbe dépend de ce que nous avons dit au commencement de ce discours, que le jugement que nous faisons des choses (comme quand je dis, la terre est ronde) enferme necessairement deux termes; l’un appellé sujet, qui est ce dont on affirme, comme, terre; & l’autre appellé attribut, qui est ce qu’on affirme, comme ronde: Et de plus la liaison entre ces deux termes, qui est proprement l’action de notre esprit qui affirme l’attribut du sujet. (Arnauld & Lancelot 1660: 89)
(‘The knowledge of the nature of the Verb depends on what we said at the beginning of this discourse, that the judgment we make about things (as when I say, the earth is round) necessarily includes two terms: one called subject, which is what we affirm about, such as earth; and the other called attribute, which is what is affirmed, such as round. And moreover the connection between these two terms, which is strictly the action of our mind that affirms the attribute about the subject.’ translation from Kahane 2020: 100)
[1.5] Also in the 17th Century, Christopher Cooper in his Grammatica Linguae Aglicanae, a grammar of the English language written in Latin, makes an attempt to bridge the two worlds of grammatical and logical analysis, clearly articulating the difference between the grammatical term “nominative” and the logical term “subject”. He also uses the term “predicate”, but apparently not yet “object”:
Substantivum … Et hoc a grammaticis noncupatur casus nominativus, a logicis subjectum. … Id … vocatur praedicatum; quod si duobus verbis exprimitur, substantivum vel adjectivum subsequens copulam in regimine. (Cooper 1685: 171-172)
(‘Noun, … grammatically it is called nominative, logically it is called subject. … It is called predicate when there are two words expressed, noun or adjective following a copula.’)
[1.6] In the 18th Century the use of the logical terminology for functional categories in the analysis of sentence structure broadens. For example, in France, l’Abbé Girard in Les vrais principes de la language françoise (1747: 90-92) uses the terms Subjectif, Attributif and Objectif (see also Forsgren 1985: 43). He seems to build on the sujet/attribut terminology from the Grammaire Générale et Raisonnée (see above) and extends this functional approach to other aspects of linguistic structure, notebly introducing the term “object”. In Germany, Johann Christoph Adelung in his Umständliches Lehrgebäude der Deutschen Sprache (1782: 61) uses the terms Subject and Praedicat, but not anyting resembling the term object. In yet another example, this time from England, Joseph Priestly in his Rudiments of English Grammar (1772) uses the terms “subject” and “object”, but he does not appear to have used the term “predicate”:
Q. What is meant by the Subject of an affirmation?
A. The person of thing concerning which the affirmation is made.Q. What is a verb transitive?
A. A verb transitive, besides having a subject, implies, likewise, an object of the affirmation, upon which its meaning may, as it were, pass; and without which the sense would not be complete. (Priestley 1772: 13)
[1.7] These are just a few examples of the adoption of erstwhile logical terminology into the realm of grammatical description. The expansion of this terminology in the 17th and 18th Century needs a more detailed investigation than what I am able to provide here. But by the start of the 19th Century the terms subject, object, predicate and copula all seem to have been completely accepted as regular terms for grammatical analysis. Yet, what exactly these terms are supposed to main in the realm of grammar remains up for debate. Specifically, there are two aspects of the logical origin of these terms that spill over into the grammatical realm and remain widespread in the 19th Century and beyond. These are (i) the balanced and privilaged bond between subject and predicate (cf. the “S-P-Funktion” in Forsgren 1992–: 75-76) and (ii) the universality of the copula (cf. the “Copula-Theorie” in Forsgren 1992–: 135-153).
[1.8] There seem to be at least two reasons:
[1.9] Previous studies into the history of graphical grammar: (Gelbe 1880; Grosse 1966; Brittain 1973; Percival 1976; Stewart 1976; Baum 1976: 36-42; Coseriu 1980; Forsgren 1992–; Thümmel 1993; Seuren 1998: 219-227; Franzkowiak 2013; Seuren 2015; Dukes 2024)
[1.10] Studies on grammar writing in general: (Lyman 1922; Huston 1954; Leitner 1991; Görlach 1997; Graffi 2001; Linn 2006)
[1.11] Often multiple editions of works, with differences. So it is important to check exactly which edition is consulted. Bibliography includes links to scans of the originals, different entries for different editions consulted. Not all crucial editions are available online, but hopefully this will change.
[2.1] He uses the term Periode for the complex sentence, a term that goes straight back to antiquity. Aristotle uses the term περίοδος ‘periodos’ to describe something akin to a complete sentence, consisting of multiple clauses (with κῶλον ‘kolon’ being used for something akin to a clause). Burkett explains that “the term periodos is one of Aristotle‘s visual metaphors, suggesting a circular motion or completeness of thought and rhythm.” (Burkett 2011: 206).
λέγω δὲ περίοδον λέξιν ἔχουσαν ἀρχὴν καὶ τελευτὴν αὐτὴν καθ᾽ αὑτὴν καὶ μέγεθος εὐσύνοπτον (Aristoteles, Rhetorica III 9.3) Original online at the Perseus Digital Library < http://data.perseus.org/citations/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0086.tlg038.perseus-grc1:3.9.3>.
(‘I call a period an expression having a beginning and an end in itself and a magnitude easily taken in at a glance.’ translation from Burkett 2011: 206)
[2.2] The term Periode as a grammatical term for the complex sentence is widespread in German 18th and 19th Century grammatical texts. It is used already by Meiner (1781: 446) and Heyse (1814: 491) and appears in almost all works to be discussed later in this chapter.
[2.3] In German grammars of the 18th and 19th Century there is a widespread conceptual distinction between a bare and an extended sentence. A bare sentence is mostly defined as a sentence with only a subject and a predicate without any attributive or adverbial modifiers; a minimal sentence of sorts. The examples given always have intransitive verbs and it remains unclear whether transitive sentences also could be “bare”. An extended sentence, in contrast, contains additional modifiers, though subordinate clauses are mostly relegated to yet further categories of sentence structure. This distinction is mostly referred to using the German words nackt ‘naked’ vs. ausgebildet ‘developed’. However, there is some interesting variations and discussion throughout the 19th Century about exactly which word should be used.
[2.4] The origin of this terminological distinction can probably be traced back to Meiner (1781: 446), who uses the terms bloß ‘bare’ for a minimal sentence and ausgebildet ‘developed’ for a sentence with additional modifiers. Contemporaneously, Adelung (1782: 572) uses the terms einfach/nackt ‘simple/naked’ and ausgebildet ‘developed’. This terminology is slightly changed in the first edition of Heyse’s influential grammar of German (Heyse 1814: 492-492) into einfach/rein ‘simple/pure’ and ausgebildet/erweitert ‘developed/extended’. Then Heyse adjusted this again in the second edition by adding the term nackt ‘naked, bare’ as an alternative to einfach and rein (Heyse 1820: 598). Finally, in the fourth edition of 1827 Heyse adds the term bekleidet ‘dressed’:
Solche Sätze […] kann man ausgebildete, erweiterte, oder (im Gegensatze zu den nackten) bekleidete Sätze nennen. (Heyse 1827: 636)
(‘Such sentences can be called “developed”, “extended” or (opposite to “naked”) “dressed” sentences.’)
[2.5] The term bekleidet leads to a lot of discussion, because of the sexual connotations. The term nackt is not so much the problem, because this German word in general is used to refer to situation without cover, like nackter Boden ‘bare floor’, and it is also regularly used metaphorically, like in nackte Angst ‘sheer terror’. So, there is no sexual connotation with the usage of the word nackt when used in opposition to the words ausgebildet or erweitert. However, in opposition to the word bekleidet ‘dressed’ the meaning of the word nackt suddenly obtains a strong sexual connotation, clearly meaning ‘nude’. Some authors (e.g. Billroth 1834; Götzinger 1835a) use bekleidet, maybe because they find it funny and consider it a nice joke to motivate students, while others strongly object to this choice of words as being vulgar, or at least tasteless.
Man nennt solche Sätze, welche nur die wesentlichen (Haupt-) Satztheile enthalten, nackte, und solche, welche auch noch andere Theile enthalten, (nicht: bekleidete, sondern) ausgebildete oder erweiterte Sätze. (Diesterweg 1830: 166)
Von nackten und bekleideten Sätzen zu reden ist geschmacklos, von nackten und erweiterten ist nicht viel geschmackvoller und enthält außerdem einen schiefen Gegensatz, den man in keiner Schülerarbeit dulden würde. (Kern 1883: 5)
[2.6] Hoffmann 1839 uses nackter und umkleideter Satz 146-148
[2.7] Karl Philipp Moritz (1756-1793) was a prolific author with wide ranging interests. Towards the end of his life he became professor for the arts at the Königliche Akademie der Künste in Berlin. Among his many writings there are various instructional books and articles about grammar, see Schmidt (1993) for a concise summary of his linguistic oeuvre. Of particular interest here is the Deutsche Sprachlehre für die Damen in Briefen (Moritz 1782). The context and linguistic content of this work is discussed in more detail by Buhofer (1994). This book was quite successful, being reprinted in 1791, 1794 and 1806. All later editions dropped the somewhat curious addition für die Damen from the title.
[2.8] The Deutsche Sprachlehre contains to my knowledge the first graphical display of a grammatical analysis. In the Zehnter Brief: Von dem Bau der Rede, starting on page 267, Moritz discusses various simple examples, culminating in two large fold-out page-inserts between pages 308 and 309, reproduced here in Figure 2.1 and Figure 2.2. Later, in the first volume of his 1793 Grammatisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache there is a short summary of this grammatical analysis under the heading of Construktion (Moritz 1793: 283-295). After Moritz’ early demise that same year (at only 37 years of age) this Grammatisches Wörterbuch was completed by other authors without any further mentioning of this new kind of sentence analysis. The most extensive exposition of Moritz’ envisioned analysis thus remains the discussion in the 1782 Deutsche Sprachlehre.
[2.9] Moritz’ linguistic analysis is particularly noteworthy because it is an early version of what later will be called a Satzgliedanalyse (‘phrasal analysis’). Although Moritz consistently talks about the “words” of the sentence, he clearly intends these “words” to be something closer to what today would be called phrases. These phrases are classified into various functions, using German labels for didactic purposes (e.g. Grund=subject, Ziel=accusative object, Zweck=dative indirect object). Forsgren (1985: 76), discussing the origin of such phrasal analyses at the end of the 18th Century, argues that Moritz’ approach is one of the earliest examples of a phrasal analysis and his ideas appear to be developed independently from other contemporaries.
[2.10] Examining the details of this visual display, each clause can be identified by a large bracket. Within each clausal bracket there is a table-like structure with function-names on top and the actual words of the clause below. Each clause consists of Grund (“subject”) and Rede (“predicate”), with possibly additional syntactic functions like Ziel (“accusative object”), Zweck (“dative object”) or Bindung (“conjunction”). Optional elements like Hinanfügung (“adverbial phrase”) and Einschiebung (“interjection”) are placed loosely below the main syntactic functions, implicitly hinting at an argument/adjunct distinction. Various details are not completely thought through and the examples are sometimes slightly inconsistent. For example, the phrase von der Schulter in clause 11 is analysed as an adverbial Hinanfügung, while the completely parallel phrase auf die Schulter in clause 18 is analysed as an object-like zweites Ziel.
[2.11] More interesting is the treatment of subordinate clauses. Subordinate clauses are given a function in the matrix clause and then are further analysed within a new bracket as a separate clause below. This can be seen in Figure 2.2 with the analysis of direct speech in clause 13, which is the Ziel of the matrix clause 12. Likewise, the adverbial um zu+Infinitiv subordinate clause 21 is the Zweck of the matrix clause 20.
[2.12] This display of subordinate clauses is no coincidence. In the text there is an explicit discussion of this analysis of subordinate clauses (Moritz 1782: 299-300) based on the example sentence (2.1). This sentence is analysed by Moritz into four separate clauses. The four clauses and their functions in the superordinate clause are listed in (2.1 a-d), as shown in Figure 2.3. Each of these subordinate clauses is subsequently analysed using the same clausal analysis structure as the superordinate clause, as can be seen in Figure 2.4.
| (2.1) | Wenn ich meine Pflicht thue, so fühle ich, daß mir dieses genug ist, um vergnügt und glücklich zu sein. | |
| a. | Grund und Rede: so fühle ich | |
| b. | Ziel: daß mir dieses genug ist | |
| c. | Zweck: um vergnügt und glücklich zu sein | |
| d. | Hinanfügung: wenn ich meine Pflicht thue | |
[2.13] Nitpicking one might argue that this analysis of the complex sentence is not completely correct. Clause 2 from Figure 2.4 is not a separate clause but the superordinate clause itself. Further, The subordinate part um vergnügt und glücklich zu sein is analysed in Figure 2.3 as Zweck (‘reason’, confusingly a label otherwise also used for dative arguments by Moritz). However, this clause is not directly subordinate to the main clause so fühle ich but it is secondary subordinate to the Ziel complement clause daß mir dieses genug ist.
[2.14] Notwithstanding these inaccuracies, Moritz’ analysis shows a clear understanding of subordinate clauses having simultaneously an internal functional structure and, as a whole clause, having a function inside a superordinate structure. Anachronistically interpreting this as a constituency analysis, this sentence can be displayed as shown in Figure 2.5. Note that this is somewhat akin to an “underlying” structure as the ordering does not correspond to the original sentence. Moritz consistently applies the same functional structure on each clause (viz. the ordering Grund-Rede-Ziel-Zweck-Hinanfügung). The numbering in this example indicates the eventual ordering in the resulting sentence.
[2.15] Summarising, Moritz appears to have a clear understanding of, first, phrases as the basis of syntactic analysis. Second, he assigns a syntactic function to each phrase. Third, his examples indicate a basic, through rather implicit, understanding of adjuncts as less crucial phrases (Hinanfügung) that are visually displayed below the main constituents. Fourth, subordinate clauses have their own clausal structure, while the subordinate as a whole is assigned a function in the superordinate clause, which is a clear precursor of constituency structure. Finally, in the text he explicitly mentions that the ordering of the elements in the actual sentence is slightly different from the ordering in his analyses, and he hints at rules that determine how the abstract “underlying” structure has to be reordered into the actual form.
[2.16] All these theoretical concepts are quite charmingly summarised by his graphical display, which can be interpreted as a kind of precursor of a constituency structure. Apparently appearing completely out of the blue, the idea of using graphics to elucidate grammatical structure is off to a great start with these proposals from Moritz’ Deutsche Sprachlehre. Unfortunately, his approach does not have had any following and it would take almost 50 years for graphical methods to be used again for grammatical analysis, by Diesterweg in 1830 (see Section 2.3.1).
[2.17] Simon Heinrich Adolf Herling (1780-1849) was a teacher in Frankfurt am Main and founding member, and later main organiser, of the Frankfurter Gelehrtenverein für deutsche Sprache. His analysis of multi-clause sentences is widely considered foundational for the grammatical analysis of German. A wide-ranging appraisal of Herling’s work can be found in Elmentaler (1996). Herling is a close friend and colleague to Ferdinand Becker (see Section 2.2.5), who is also an active member of the Frankfurter Gelehrtenvereion. A plan to write a joint grammar fell apart, indicating different opinions in their approach to grammatical analysis (Haselbach 1966: 69). Their relation remains amicable, as indicated by the fact that the first part of Herling’s Syntax der deutschen Sprache (Herling 1830) is dedicated to Becker.
[2.18] Strictly speaking, the work of Herling does not include any graphical display of grammatical analysis. However, his work is still included here because he introduces some notation that will be expanded upon graphically by later authors, especially Lehmann (see Section 2.3.3) and Götzinger (see Section 2.3.4). Herling’s notational framework is first introduced in the Grundregeln des deutschen Stils oder der Periodenbau der deutschen Sprache. Ein Lehrbuch für den stilistischen Unterricht (Herling 1823), which later becomes the second part of Die Syntax der deutschen Sprache (second edition 1827, third edition 1832).
[2.19] In his book Herling analyses the different ways a Periode is constructed from multiple clauses. In a short note inserted in small font inside the main text, Herling proposes a special notation um die Umformungen kürzer zu bezeichnen, und so leichter überschauen zu können ‘to succinctly mark the transformations and thus be able to survey them more easily’ (Herling 1823: 177). The usage of the term Umformung deserves it’s own discussion, which will not be pursued here. The special notation is summarised slightly clearer in the second and third edition (e.g. Herling 1832: 232, see also 177). The version from the third edition is shown here in the Figure 2.6, which can be translated as follows:
For the succinct marking of the sentences and their syntactic relationships may the following symbols be of use: h indicates grammatical main sentence; b adjective clause, β, when it is shortened; a adverbial clause, α, the same shortened; s nominal clause, σ the same shortened. The exponents, e.g. a2 indicate the grammatical grade, to h e.g. h2 the grade of the logical gradation; h/2, h/3, indicates that the main clause, or a/2, a/3 that the adverbial clause is separated into two or three parts. The coefficients e.g. 2h indicate the number of equivalent main clauses; with a, b, s their relationship to the main clauses, often their coordination. (Herling 1832: 232)
[2.20] Herling does not use his notations consistently throughout his book. There are only a few incidental examples and there are almost no sentences completely marked according to his system. The example in (2.2) is one of the more interesting and complex cases (Herling 1832: 233). Yet, in contrast to intended purpose, the abstract analysis with letters and numbers, interspersed inside the sentence, does not really ease the quick appraisal of the sentence structure, in my opinion.
| (2.2) | Um (α) dem Soldatenstande zu entgehen, gegen den (b2) er, ungeachtet (α3) seinen unternehmenden Geistes und kräftigen Körpers, entschiedene Abneigung fühlte, verdingte er sich, (1h) im sechszehnten Jahre, bei einem Gastwirthe an der Gränze als Fuhrknecht, und (2h) kehrte erst nach sieben Jahren, da (2a) eben in seinem Geburtsorte ein nicht ganz unbedeutendes Grundstück feil geboten ward, in die Heimath zurück. (Herling 1832: 233) |
[2.21] Anachronistically interpreting Herling’s analysis in modern terms, his symbols can be seen as a constituency structure. All clauses in the complex sentence are given a label and are related to each other in a hierarchical fashion, distinguishing coordination (viz. number in front) from subordination (viz. special letters for different kinds of embedding and superscript numbers to indicate deeper levels of embedding). Crucially, the clauses are linked to each other without using specific words as anchor points, like they would be in a dependency structure (cf. Becker’s sentence analysis of a complex sentence, see Section 2.2.5). Figure 2.7 shows an interpretation of Herling’s analysis from (2.2) in the form of a constituency tree.
[2.22] The analysis of the complex sentence remains a topic of Herling’s subsequent work. Noteworthy in the current context is a note to the teachers at the end of the Erster Cursus eines wissenschaftlichen Unterrichtes in der deutschen Sprache für Deutsche, nach einer neuen auf die Bildungsgesetze der Sprachen gegründeten Methode (Herling 1828). This book does not have any graphics in the main text. However, completely at the end, in the Appendix Bemerkungen und Erläuterungen für den Lehrer (Herling 1828: 311-367), he mentions the symbolic analysis using letters as discussed above (Herling 1828: 365-366). And then, as a cherry on top, he proposes to use the well-known graphical display of musical notation to illustrate the structure of complex sentences, as shown in Figure 2.8. Herling does not seem to have taken this idea further, only Diesterweg did (see Section 2.3.1). Unfortunately, this innovative proposal appears to have disappeared after that.
[2.23] The example in Figure 2.8 consists of two paragraphs, a “good” and a “faulty” example. The good example (2.3) is from the philosopher Johann Jakob Engel. It consists of five sentences, which are indicated in the notation by the (vertical) musical bar lines. The main clauses (h) are basically placed on the middle line, though some are on higher lines. It is not completely clear from the text how exactly this difference in “height” is determined. Subordinate clauses are written below the main clauses, depending on the depth of the embedding. There is a curious addition of “speed” in the graphical display, as indicated by the quarter and sixteenth notes. It seems to be used for stretches of parallel clauses.
| (2.3) | So lange der Mensch nicht reden konnte, so sah, hörte, fühlte und schmeckte er bloß; aber er dachte nicht. So langue der Mensch nicht schreiben konnte, dachte er wenig, und redete schlecht. Die Zunge und der Griffel machten endlich den Menschen zu dem, was er werden sollte. Seine Begriffe wurden hell, indem er sie mitzutheilen suchte; sie wurden methodisch, indem er ihnen eine gewisse Fortdauer gab, die sie der Verbesserung, und Ausbildung fähig machte. Und dieser Weg, den das ganze menschliche Geschlecht nahm, um klüger zu werden, ist auch immer noch der einzige für den einzelnen Menschen. (Herling 1828: 305-306, uncredited quotation from J.J. Engel (1775) Der Philosoph für die Welt, Siebzehntes Stück Das Weihnachtsgeschenk) |
[2.24] Maximilian Wilhelm Götzinger (1799–1856) was a teacher of German, most of his life working in Schaffhausen (Switzerland). He wrote extensively about grammar, literature and dialectology, see Olsson (2009) for an comprehensive appraisal of his work. Besides his didactic writings, Götzinger also provided material for Grimm’s dictionary project (Olsson 2009: 37) and he was even awarded a doctorate honoris causa from the University of Basel in 1838 (Olsson 2009: 36), probably through his personal contact with Wilhelm Wackernagel (the father of Jacob Wackernagel of Wackernagel’s law-fame).
[2.25] Götzinger wrote two didactic grammatical textbooks, both of which appeared in many different editions throughout the 19th Century (see Olsson 2009: 42-46 for a list of all editions). The book Die Anfangsgründe der deutschen Sprachlehre in Regeln und Aufgaben was first published in Leipzig in 1825. This was followed in quick succession by the Deutsche Sprachlehre für Schulen, first published in 1827 in Aarau. He also wrote a much more interesting book in 1836, which will be discussed separately (see Section 2.3.4).
[2.26] There is a curious graphic in the first edition of the Deutsche Sprachlehre für Schulen (Götzinger 1827: 263), reproduced here in Figure 2.9 from the second edition because of the higher quality of the scan (Götzinger 1830: 263). The graphic indicates the Hebung ‘raising’ and Senkung ‘lowering’ of the voice at the various Glieder of a Periode, so this is not a graphical display of syntactic structure. For example, the example sentence in (2.4) illustrates the option Viergliedrig, in this case probably intended to show a case with three rising Glieder and a final falling one.
| (2.4) | Wo göttliche Kraft und Empfindung die Gedanken belebt; wo Dank und Bitte auf den Flügeln des Wortes zum Himmel steigt; wo ein heiliger Ort den umherschweifenden Sinn feßelt und sammelt – da ist Religion. (Götzinger 1827: 264, citing an example from Köppen) |
[2.27] Friedrich Jakob Schmitthenner (1796-1850) was school director and later professor for history and organisation of state at the university of Gießen. He also wrote various books about German grammar and was part of the Frankfurtischer Gelehrtenverein für deutsche Sprache, alongside Herling (Section 2.2.2) and Becker (Section 2.2.5).
[2.28] In his 1828 book Teutonia. Ausführliche Sprachlehre nach neuer wissenschaftlicher Begründung. II. Buch. Höhere Sprachlehre Schmitthenner includes a graphic for the Periode (Figure 2.10). This graphic is very similar to Götzinger’s graphic (see Section 2.2.3), though it is unclear whether there is any direct influence. Like Götzinger, Schmitthenner explains that in his graphic the up and down strokes are supposed to indicate rising (Hebung) and falling (Senkung) intonation, and not syntactic structure. (Schmitthenner 1828: 185)
[2.29] Karl Ferdinand Becker (1775-1849) was probably one of the most influential grammatical educators from the start of the 19th Century. He originally started out as a medical doctor, but that turned out not be a financial success. Instead, he started to make a living by teaching German to English-speaking students. Turning his attention to linguistics, he wrote various books about German grammar. For a thorough repraisal of Becker’s linguistic work, see Haselbach (1966). Becker also became a member of the Frankfurter Gelehrtenverein für deutsche Sprache, where he met Herling (see Section 2.2.2) and Schmitthenner (see Section 2.2.4).
[2.30] In his Organism der Sprache als Einleitung zur deutschen Grammatik (Becker 1827) Becker presents a clear plan for analysis of syntactic relationships inside the sentence (which he called Satzverhältnisse), and it is easily possible to anachronistically depict these ideas graphically (e.g. Haselbach 1966: 156-161). However, Becker himself never produced any graphical display of the analysis of a specific sentence, but he came very close with a tabular method of analysis.
[2.31] Becker orginaly introduced a few examples of his tabular method in the preface of the Deutsche Grammatik (Becker 1829). Here he presents a few examples of how sentences should be analysed, calling the process Analyse der Sätze (Becker 1829: xvi-xix). This explanation is addressed to teachers, instructing them how students should approach the analysis of a sentence. Astonishingly, he never describes this analytical approach in the grammar itself. He returns to this approach in a short book Über die Methode des Unterrichtes in der deutschen Sprache, again directed to teachers (Becker 1833: 36-46). In this book he calls the process Zergliederung.
[2.32] Becker’s basic idea is to use a table with all words of the sentence listed as the rows of a table. This approach feels completely natural in the English grammatical tradition of “parsing”, which he might have encountered while teaching English-speaking students. In the English grammatical tradition, parsing has a long history. The English word itself originates from the Latin pars orationis, i.e. originally parsing is the process to assign parts of speech to individual words. The Oxford English Dictionary lists examples of this usage all the way back to the 16th Century. However, the process of consistently going through a sentence, listing all words separately, and analysing each one individually, seems to have been first used by John Brinsly the Elder in his Ludus Literarius from 1612 (nice examples in Brinsley 1612: 102, 130). In the centuries since, this approach to parsing became a mainstay in the English grammatical tradition (Lyman 1922: 120-122). Curiously, this approach to sentence analysis seems to have been basically unknown outside of the English-speaking grammatical tradition.
[2.33] An example of Becker’s table is shown in Figure 2.11, analysing the example sentence in (2.5). The crucial innovation of Becker is the addition of numbers to each row of the table, an approach never before and never since used in the English tradition. Becker uses these numbers to clarify the relationships between the words, as for each word he adds the number to the word it modifies at the end of each row in the table.
| (2.5) | Wallenstein wußte längst den Inhalt ihrer Sendung als die Abgesandten des Kaisers ihm vor die Augen traten. |
[2.34] The format of the table is actually almost completely identical to the modern CoNLL-U table-format https://universaldependencies.org/format.html of for dependency trees. In that format all words are listed in a tab-delimeted file, with minimally five columns: (i) a numerical ID, (ii) the linguistic elemens, (iii) the word class, (iv) the relation to the head, and (v) the number of the head it modifies. The resulting dependency tree is shown in Figure 2.12. The file to reproduce this tree is linked at the end of the caption, and is almost verbatim the table from Becker’s book of 1829.
[2.35] A more extensive description of this tabular method is given in Becker (1833: 38-46), using the Term Zergliederung. From the exposition in that book the impression arises that Becker considered this kind of analysis the basis of all grammatical education. He argues how important it is to practice this Zergliederung with students, and that all other aspects of the grammar can be better explained and understood when they are able to perform such a Zergliederung. It remains completely unclear why this method is only presented in texts adressed for the teachers, and never in the actual grammar books.
[2.36] A final example of such a Zergliederung is presented in Figure 2.13 for the sentence in (2.6). This example is interesting because it contains various subordinated clauses. However, the method is easily extended to deal with such complex sentences. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to turn this table into the CoNLL-U format and generate a dependency tree.
[2.37] In summary, the grammatical writings of Becker have had a lot of influence in the 19th Century, but his very practical idea of a numbered tabular analysis has unfortunately not been widely acknowledged. Diesterweg used it, but those proposals also did not have a large impact (see Section 2.3.1).
| (2.6) | Jakob schickte seinen jüngsten Sohn nicht mit den übrigen nach Aegypten, weil schon einmal ein Sohn, den er ausgesandt hatte, nicht zurückgekehrt war, und weil er fürchtete, daß auch diesem ein Unfall begegnen möchte. |
[2.38] Freidrich Adolph Wilhelm Diesterweg (1790-1866) was a teacher and a prolific author of textbooks. He also wrote extensively about didactic methods in general, strongly influenced by the ideas of Pestalozzi. Later in life he was politically active in an attempt to reform the Prussian educational system. His practical textbooks mainly dealt with mathematics and German linguistics. A comprehensive analysis of his linguistic work can be found in Czoska (1984). His linguistic proposals did not have much influence on the further development of syntactic analysis, which is unfortunate, because there are a lot of useful insights hidden there.
[2.39] The Praktischer Lehrgang für den Unterricht in der deutschen Sprache is a massive three-volume guide for teachers. As it says in the subtitle, it is ein Leitfaden für Lehrer, welche die Muttersprache naturgemäß lehren wollen (‘a guide for teachers who want to teach the mother tongue in a natural way’). In the current context I will concentrate on the second volume Die Wortformen und die Satzlehre. This second volume first appeared in 1830 (Diesterweg 1830), but there have been some important changes in the second edition from 1834 (Diesterweg 1834). The third edition from 1838 (Diesterweg 1838) and the fourth from 1847 only saw minor changes. I will cite the 1830 and 1834 version where appropriate, but often include references to the 1838 version as well, as this is the highest-quality openly available digital version. For that reasons I have also used the 1838 for the images included here, as they do not change from the 1830 or 1834 versions.
[2.40] In the preface to the second edition from 1834, Diesterweg calls his approach Elementarmethode ‘elementary method’ (a clear nod to Pestalozzi), in opposition to the wissenschaftliche oder die constructive Methode ‘scientific or constructive method’ (Diesterweg 1834: xii-xiii). As examples of the scientific method he explicitly cites Herling, Becker, Götzinger and Schmitthenner, all of which he deems inappropriate for secondary education. However, the subsequent proposals Diesterweg makes in his book are all clearly inspired by these authors.
[2.41] In the first edition from 1830, Diesterweg includes a graphical represenation of the intonation contour of a Periode, following Götzinger (Section 2.2.3) and Schmitthenner (Section 2.2.4), shown here in Figure 2.14 (Diesterweg 1830: 191), shown here in the version from the third edition (Diesterweg 1838: 169). Diesterweg proposes a consistent uses of punctuation marks, with semicolons for sequences of Beiordung and colons for the main intonation maximum. With this analysis, Diesterweg follows the approach from Götzinger that each Periode has a single maximum.
[2.42] In the 1830 edition Diesterweg also proposes a notation for subordinated clauses (using a raised star: *) and coordinated clauses (using a the typographic dagger: †). Deeper embedded clauses are marked by repeating these symbols (Diesterweg 1830: 188-190). These symbols are placed at the start of each clause, resulting in examples like (2.7), somewhat reminiscent of the use of letters in (2.2) by Herling.
| (2.7) | Nicht, * um dir einen neuen Beweis meiner zärtlichen Sehnsucht zu geben, *† sondern um feurige Kohlen auf dein feindseliges Haupt zu sammeln, schreibe ich dir noch eineml, † und zwar aus dieser berühmten Handelsstadt (Leipzig), * welche durch ihre Messen ganz Deutschland mit Waaren aller Art versorgt, *† und deren Name gleich berühmt ist durch die Leckerbissen, ** die sie den Reichen, *† wie durch Schätze der Gelehrsamkeit, ** die sie den Gebildeten liefert. (Diesterweg 1830: 189) |
[2.43] In the 1834 edition Diesterweg replaces these symbolic visualisations with letter sequences based on the proposals by Herling (see Section 2.2.2) and Lehmann (see Section 2.3.3). He introduces capital letters for main clauses and lower-case letters for subordinate clauses like Lehmann (1833) using the superscript numbers for ‘deeper’ subordinations like Herling Herling (1823). However, Diesterweg ignores the meaning of the different letters as proposed by Herling, similar to Lehmann (1833). Also, he ignores Lehmann’s use of horizontal braces, replacing them with simple commas. The resulting sequence of letters is called Satzbild by Diesterweg (1834: 163, 170), which is the first occurence of this term. However, at another page he uses the term Periodenbild with the same meaning (Diesterweg 1834: 168-169). This term was first used by Lehmann (1833).
[2.44] Additionally, Diesterweg combines the letter sequences with the graphical representation of the intonation contour (Diesterweg 1834: 162-163; Diesterweg 1838: 164-165). And as an alternative representation, Diesterweg also proposes to use the music-score diagram from Herling (1828). Both visualisations are shown in Figure 2.15 (Diesterweg 1834: 169; Diesterweg 1838: 171) illustrating the example sentence in (2.8). Just like Diesterweg, I leave it as an exercise to the reader to follow along with the analysis in the figure.
| (2.8) | Wenn der Mensch allein auf der Erde steht, und alle Herzen, die ihn liebten, in ihr und unter ihr ausgeschlagen haben, und in dem Gewühle der Menge, die ohne Rast nach ihrem Ziele drängt, keiner bei ihm verweilen will; wenn sein Schmerz einsam auf seinem harten Lager stöhnt, und keine Stimme ihm antwortet, als der herzlose Wiederhall; wenn sein thränenloses, glühendes Auge umsonst ein anderes sucht, und seine starre Hand nach einer andern greift, und die Kälte der Menschen ihn noch empfindlicher quält, als die Kälte des Winters in seiner düsteren Kammer: so ist doch in diesem Jammer, den so Viele jammern, noch eines, welches die Dornen des Schmerzes zerdrückt; do ist doch ein Auge, das liebend auf ihm ruht, und eine Hand, die ihn von seinem Strohlager aufrichtet. (Diesterweg 1834: 169, citing an example from Friedrich Jacobs) |
[2.45] But Diesterweg is not yet finished. He also proposes a syntactic analysis based on the ideas of Becker (see Section 2.2.5). Diesterweg uses an intricate graphical analysis of clause internal structure for ausgebildete Sätze, as shown in Figure 2.16 (Diesterweg 1830: 174, 266; Diesterweg 1838: 158, 260). He uses the distinction between nackte ‘naked’ and ausgebildete ‘developed’ sentences here, which was widespread at the time. The question about the internal structure of a sentence only arises with ausgebildete ‘developed’ sentences, i.e. with sentences that have additional material other than a bare subject and predicate.
[2.46] Diesterweg uses braces, both horizontal and vertical, to indicate groups of words in developed sentences. It is tempting to compare this graphical approach using braces with the analysis of Moritz (see Section 2.2.1). However, there is no indication that there has been any direct influence of Moritz on Diesterweg. It seems more plausible that the use of braces is a parallel development, because large braces is simply one of the few graphical tricks that were available for typesetting at the time.
[2.47] Diesterweg does not employ syntactic diagrams with lines, because he restricts line diagrams to the illustration of hierarchical subdivision of grammatical categories, e.g differentiating kinds of plurals (Diesterweg 1838: 8), kinds of nouns (Diesterweg 1838: 22-23) or kinds of adjectives (Diesterweg 1838: 53), and many more such examples through the book. In contrast, a sentence is not an example of hierarchical subdivision, but an example of hierarchical modification, which Diesterweg calls Bestimmung. It seems plausible that Diesterweg quite consciously avoided the usage of the same visualisation for these two different applications.
[2.48] The visual analysis with braces, which Diesterweg calls Zergliederung and sometimes Analyse (following Becker 1829: 16) includes various crucial syntactic details. Many of these details are not explained; Diesterweg simply claims that well-taught pupils should be able to follow along with the analysis of the complex sentence (2.9) as illustrated with the graphic in Figure 2.16.
Sind die Schüler bis hieher [sic] gründlich unterrichtet worden; so müssen sie im Stande sein, den nachfolgenden Satz, wie folgt, zu zergliedern und wieder zusammenzusetzen. (Diesterweg 1830: 174; 1838: 158)
(‘When the pupils have been taught thoroughly up to here, then they should be able to parse and assemble again the following sentence, as follows.’)
| (2.9) | Ein unter den schwierigen Umständen standhaft gebliebener Vater von sechs unmündigen, in weiter Entfernung lebenden Kindern hat sich auch in diesem theuern Jahre durch rastlose Thätigkeit bei Tag und Nacht vor Tausenden seiner Mitbürger rühmlich ausgezeichnet. |
[2.49] Diesterweg’s visual analysis of (2.9), as shown in Figure 2.16, contains various important syntactic details that have to be inferred from closely inspecting the display:
[2.50] Diesterweg returns to this syntactic analysis at the end of the book (Diesterweg 1830: part 3, chapter nine; Diesterweg 1834: part 3, chapter ten) under the heading Die grammatische Zergliederung der Sätze (Diesterweg 1830: 263). He first repeats the previously used analysis using braces, but then turns his attention to sentences containing (multiple) subordinate clauses. Without any comment he omits the bracketed analysis and turns to a table-style analysis with numbered words and cross-references, exactly like Becker (see Section 2.2.5). Diesterweg probably noticed that the bracketed visualisation becomes exceedingly complex and confusing with more elaborated sentences. However, from his seemless switch between bracketed visualisation and numbered tables it becomes clear that these two approaches are interchangeable in his mind. It is just a matter of practical applicability which system to use in a particular example.
[2.51] Finally, there are two interesting terminological issues addressed by Diesterweg. First, he prefers the term Ausbildung over the widespread term Erweiterung, which is actually still an extremely common grammatical term in Germany today.
Man hat die ausbildung des Satzes auch erweiterung desselben genannt. Es ist Erweiterung, in so fern mehr Wörter hinzutreten, als der Satz länger wird. Es ist dies eine grammatische Erweiterung. Da aber die näher bestimmten Wörter eine engere Begriffssphäre erhalten, so ist es eine logische Verengerung. Deshalb wird das Wort erweiterung besser vermieden. (Diesterweg 1830: 167; 1834: 151)
(‘The development (Ausbildung) of a sentence is also called expansion (Erweiterung). It is an expansion because more words are added, and the sentence will become longer. So it is a grammatical expansion. However, because the modified words obtain a more narrow meaning, it is a logical narrowing. Therefore, the word expansion (Erweiterung) is better avoided.’)
[2.52] Second, throughout the discussion of syntax, Diesterweg frequently uses the nomen agentis Bestimmer ‘determiner’ for a word that modifies another. This appears to be a quite practical term, but unfortunately this terminological quirk has not caught on.
Die Ausbildung geschieht durch nähere Bestimmung der einzelnen Satztheile. Wir wollen diese Wörter, welche die Hauptsatztheile näher bestimmen, überhaupt bestimmer nennen. (Diesterweg 1830: 167; 1834: 151)
(‘The development (Ausbildung) happens by modification (Bestimmung) of the individual parts of the clause. In general, we will call such words, that further modify parts of the main clause, modifiers (Bestimmer).’)
[2.53] In summary, the grammatical analysis of Diesterweg is a complex tour-de-force, combining insights from various scholars of the preceding decade, synthesising everything into a coherent and visually appealing package. Additionally, he attempts to make the grammatical analysis practically useful for application in the classroom. Many ideas proposed in his book feel rather modern and might have kickstarted a fruitful dicussion about syntactic analysis. Unfortunately, Diesterweg’s Lehrgang does not seem to have had much impact on the further development of linguistics in general, nor specifically on the establishment of linguistic education. From here on, the development of grammatical analysis in Germany will proceed taking baby steps, instead of leaping ahead like Diesterweg demonstrated to be possible.
[2.54] At the end of his short life, Johann Gustav Willhelm Billroth (1808-1836) became professor for religion at the university in Halle. Before that, between his Habilitation in Leipzig in 1830 and the start of his position in Halle in 1834, he worked as a teacher for latin (Alwast 2000). In that context he wrote two latin grammars for use in schools, first the Lateinische Syntax für die obern Klassen gelehrter Schulen (Billroth 1832), later followed by the Lateinische Schulgrammatik für alle Klassen (Billroth 1834).
[2.55] In these grammars there is a single graphical display of a grammatical structure, shown below in Figure 2.17 (Billroth 1832: 102). There is not much known about the grammatical background of Billroth, nor is there any explicit indication in his books about the inspiration for drawing a grammatical analysis. As he was active as a school teachter, he might very well have been aware of Becker (1829, see Section 2.2.5) or Diesterweg (1830, see Section 2.3.1), both of which might be inspiration for Billroth’s graphical display. One (minor) argument that Billroth was inspired by Diesterweg is that Billroth uses the term bestimmter Satz as an alternative to bekleideter Satz (Billroth 1832: 97), and the noun Bestimmung in the meaning of modifier (Billroth 1832: 126-127). Diesterweg very extensively used the nound Bestimmung but also Bestimmer, which is not found in Billroth. It is possible that Billroth just used these words out of his own inspiration, but the usage is idiosyncrativ enough to be notewhorthy.
[2.56] In Billroth’s syntax, the whole discussion of the structure of the sentence takes 11 pages (Billroth 1832: 91-102). The structure of the text is really difficult to follow, although on closer inspection there is a clear, but drawn-out organisation. First, he introduces the simple ‘naked’ sentence as option A:
Ein Satz ist entweder: A. ein einfacher (oder nackter) d.h. ein solcher, welcher bloß aus Subject, Prädicat und Copula besteht. (Billroth 1832: 91)
(‘A sentence is either: A. a simple (or naked) one i.e. one such that it only consists of subject, predicate and copula.’)
[2.57] It takes 8 pages of explanations of the simple sentence until finally the expected follow-up to the option A occurs. Without clear formatting, the option B is announced innocuously on page 97, using a rather strange sentence structure that only makes sense when it is read immediately after the option A as quoted above.
B. oder ein bestimmter (bekleideter) d.h. ein solcher, wo entweder ein einzelner Theil oder mehrere durch Zusätze näher bestimmt werden. (Billroth 1832: 97)
(‘B. or a determined (dressed) one, i.e. one such, in which either a single part or multiple parts are further determined by additions.’)
[2.58] Then it takes another 5 pages of explanations of different kinds of such “dressed” sentences until finally this topic is closed with the conclusion quoted below. Billroth simply states (without explanation) that the example sentence (2.10) is ‘dressed’ as illustrated in Figure 2.17. In this quote, Billroth takes the metaphor of the naked/dressed sentence even one step further by using the term Körper ‘body’ for the naked sentence.
Auf diese Weise wird z.B. folgender Satz (2.10), dessen Körper eigentlich nur aus dem Subj.: Miltiades und dem Prädicat (mit dem Copula) reddidit besteht, bekleidet: (Billroth 1832: 102)
(‘In this way, the following sentence, whose body only consists of the subject Miltiades and the predicate (with copula) reddidit, is dressed:’)
| (2.10) | Miltiades, dux Atheniensium, toti Graeciae libertatem paene oppressam in pugna apud Marathonem reddidit. |
[2.59] Interpreting his graphical illustration in more detail, the naked sentence is depicted by a horizonal line, while the additional elements of the “dressed” sentence are all shown as vertical/slanted lines. Billroth very clearly intends the vertical lines to represent some kind of dependency, with multiple levels of modification being illustrated by subsequent vertical lines. The structure of the graphic is quite similar to Diesterwegs proposal in Figure 2.16, but with lines instead of curly braces.
[2.60] Exactly the same approach with the same picture is found in his extended grammar written two years later (Billroth 1834: 332-333). After Billroth’s early death this grammar has seen various new editions. The second edition of 1838 is prepared by Friedrich Ellendt and uses exactly the same figure (Billroth 1838: 329). However, in the third edition, the picture is changed, erroneously, and has become completely incomprehensible, cf. Figure 2.18 (Billroth 1848: 358). Ellendt possibly did not completely understand what the figure is supposed to represent.
[2.61] Billroth’s grammar has an interesting afterlife, but unfortunately without any further development of his graphical innovation. Friedrich Ellendt writes a different grammer for younger students based on Billroth’s model, called Lateinische Grammatik für die unteren Klassen der Gymnasien. The discussion of bekleidete oder erweitete Sätze is very similar to Billroth’s, but it has different examples and it does not have a picture anymore (Ellendt 1838: 115-116). After the death of Ellendt, that grammar is in turn adapted by Moritz Seyffert as Dr. Friedrich Ellendt’s Lateinische Grammatik für die unteren und mittleren Klassen der höheren Unterrichtsanstalten. This grammar has seen very many revisions, editions and reprints under the heading Ellendt-Seyfferts lateinische Grammatik far into the 20th Century. However, Seyffert was not very impressed by the syntactical analysis of Billroth (as noted in the preface of his revision), and he rewrote the discussion of syntax wholesale.
[2.62] On a more positive note, Billroth’s grammar had a direct influence on Julius Hoffmann (see Section 2.3.5), and Hoffmann is quoted indirectly by Franz Kern (see Section 2.3.17). So it seems very plausible that Billroth’s line diagram was a seed that grew slowly but surely.
[2.63] Johann August Otto Leopold Lehmann (1802-1883) worked as a teacher in Danzig (Gdańsk) and later as a school principal in Marienwerder (Kwidzyn). In this context, he prepared various educational textbooks, mainly consisting of literary commentaries, but also including songbooks, dialect analyses and some works on local history. Early in his career he wrote a linguistic treatise about the structure of the complex sentence: Allgemeiner Mechanismus des Periodenbaues, nebst einem Versuche, an ihn eine Kritik der deutschen Periode anzuknüpfen (Lehmann 1833). His approach to the analysis of complex sentences is based on the work of Herling (see Section 2.2.2), who is explicitly cited as a source of inspiration (Lehmann 1833: xv-xvi).
[2.64] In the title of his book, Lehmann uses the term Periode, which is a term also used by Herling. This term stems from the domain of rhetoric and roughly indicates a coherent and well-structured utterance. Continuing the tradition of Herling, Lehmann uses the term Periode to designate a complex sentence that consists of multiple clauses. Herling introduced symbolic abbreviations for different kinds of clauses (see Section 2.2.2), but Lehmann takes this a step further and proposes a comprehensive visualization of the structure of a complex sentence, which he calls a Periodenbild.
[Die] innere Anschauung der Periode soll als auf äußere Anschauung begründet dargestellt werden. Die äußere Anschauung aber findet ihr Objekt in Bildern, welche das Skelet der Perioden wiedergeben. Ich nenne dies Periodenskelet anschauungsbild der periode oder periodenbild schlechtweg. (Lehmann 1833: xiv)
(‘The internal structure of the Periode will be depicted based on the outward appearance. The outward appearance shows itself as a picture, which reflects the skeleton of the Periode. I simply call this Periode-skeleton an image of the Periode or a Periodenbild.’)
[2.65] For the visualization of a Periodenbild Lehmann distinguishes three different kinds of subordination, indicated by different symbolic devices as shown in Figure 2.19 (Lehmann 1833: 58). These three notations basically indicate a subordinate position after (1), before (2) and internal (3) to the superordinate clause, respectively. More precisely,
[2.66] At first glance it seems curious that there are completely different notation for the placement in front (colon) and the placement behind (horizontal brace). However, there is clear rationale for this difference arising from the structural possibilities of the German language (although this rationale is not explained by Lehmann in his book). The German main clause has a special initial position (today mostly called Vorfeld) that can contain a single subordinate clause. So each main clause can only have a single Vordersatz, which Lehmann indicates with the colon. Internal and final subordination can be recursively repeated.
[2.67] Lehmann’s book completely focusses on the analysis of complex sentences into their constituting clauses, using his graphical display to summarize the relationships between the clauses. There are hundreds of examples of different kinds of complex sentences discussed in his book, but there is not a single analysis of a clause-internal structure at all. He appears to be much more interested in the number of possible schemas that could exist, which are all Umformungen of a complex sentence. For example, he discusses an example of a particular schematic analysis (apparently without any real linguistic sentence in mind) that could theoretically have 37,632 Umformungen (Lehmann 1833: 116-118). Lehmann immediately notes “Es wäre thöricht, bei dieser oder ähnlichen Perioden, die zu den Verwickeltsten gehören, all möglichen Veränderungen darzustellen.” (‘It would be foolish for such or similar Perioden, that belong to the most complex ones, to illustrate all possible changes.’ Lehmann 1833: 116-118).
[2.68] Clauses are indicated by using letters, an approach that was also used by Herling (cf. Section 2.2.2). However, Lehmann has a completely different approach to the use of the letters. Lehmann is only interested in the relative ordering of the subordinated clauses and he completely ignores what kind of subordination is used. In contrast, Herling uses different letters for different grammatical kinds of subordinated clauses, for example a for adverbial clauses. When there are three adverbial clauses in a sentence, then they are all called a by Herling. The letters are thus indications of the grammatical kind of the clause. Lehmann instead uses a different letter for each subordinate clause, giving each clause an individual label, but omitting any indication of the internal structure.
[2.69] This difference between Herling and Lehmann also concerns the use of Greek letters. Herling uses greek letters for non-finite subordinate clauses (using zu-infinitive or participial verb forms in German), but Lehmann does not consider non-finite clauses at all. He uses greek letters for doubly-embedded subordinate clauses. In contrast, Herling uses numerical superscripts for multiple grades of embedding. Lehmann uses different kinds of scripts to distinguish multiple grades of embedding. He uses capital letters for main clauses, lower-case letters for subordinate clauses and greek letters for doubly-embedded clauses. Third-grade embedding uses Fraktur capital letters (e.g. 𝔄, 𝔅) and fourth-grade embedding uses Fraktur lower-case letter (e.g. 𝔞, 𝔟). There is even a short discussion of a fifth-grade embedding, which is indicated with numerals (Lehmann 1833: 232).
[2.70] In contrast to Herling, Lehmann’s approach thus ignores many apects of the grammatical analysis of a sentence. However, his focus on the relation between clauses allows him in return to tackle really complex sentences. Consider, for example, the long and complex sentence in (2.11), which is a sentence from Immanuel Kant’s Anthropologie in pragmatischer Hinsicht (Lehmann 1833: 125-126). The internal structure of this sentence is summarized by Lehmann with a relatively simple Periodenbild as shown in Figure 2.20.
| (2.11) | Daß ferner, wenn es (das Kind) nun zu sprechen versucht, das Radbrechen der Wörter es für Mütter und Ammen so liebenswürdig macht, es beständig zu herzen und zu küssen und es auch wohl durch Erfüllung alles Wunsches und Willens zum kleinen Befehlshaber zu verziehn: diese Liebenswürdigkeit des Geschöpfs im Zeitraum seiner Entwicklung zur Menschheit, muß wohl auf Rechnung seiner Unschuld und Offenheit aller seiner noch fehlerhaften Aeußerungen, wobei noch kein Hehl und nichts Arges ist, einerseits, andrerseits aber auf den natürlichen Hang der Ammen zum Wohlthun an einem Geschöpf, welches einschmeichelnd sich der Willkür eines andern überläßt, geschrieben werden, da ihm eine Spielzeit eingewilligt wird, die glücklichste unter allen, wobei der Erzieher dadurch, daß er sich selber gleichsam zum Kinde macht, diese Annehmlichkeit nochmals genießt. (Lehmann 1833: 125-126, citing Immanuel Kant Anthropologie in pragmatischer Hinsicht 1798: 5) |
[2.71] The different clauses in Figure 2.20 are listed below, exactly as it is explained in the text by Lehmann:
[2.72] Although Lehmann’s book does not appear to have been reprinted after the first edition from 1833, it has influenced later more widely read works by Götzinger (see Section 2.3.4) and Bauer (see Section 2.3.8), whose graphical displays will be reprinted up to 1935. Götzinger’s acknowledgement indicates that Lehmann’s approach might have had some real influence in didactic circles, although it has not endured to the present day:
Die von Herrn Director Lehmann in Marienwerden zuerst aufgestellten Periodenbilder haben bei vielen Schulmännern Beifall und Anwendung gefunden, und es macht mir große Freude, durch meine Lehrbücher zur Verbreitung dieser Methode, deren Verdienst ganz allein Herrn Lehmann gebührt, beigetragen zu haben. (Götzinger 1842: x, Vorrede zur fünften Auflage)
(‘The Periodenbilder, first drawn by director Lehmann from Marienwerder, have been praised and employed by many Schoolmen, and I am delighted through my textbooks to have contributed to the wider circulation of this method, the credit to which completely befits Mr. Lehmann.’)
[2.73] Lehmann himself remained active and used his system in various later publications. First, he used it in Goethe’s Sprache und ihr Geist (Lehmann 1852: 152-180) to analyse sentences by Goethe, which includes very complex examples of his notation. Surprisingly, Lehmann is regularly quite critical of Goethe and uses his notation to argue for the imbalanced sentence structure, for example (2.12) as analysed in Figure 2.21.
Schon das Bilde dieser Periode zeigt deren Uebelstände. Erstlich die große Masse der Sätze, zweitens der Mangel an Ebenmaß theils zwischen den koordinirten Hauptsätzen theils zwischen den koordinirten Nebensätzen, drittens die Vorherrschaft des Anfügungsgesetzes. (Lehmann 1852: 171-172)
(‘Alreade the image of this Periode shows its foul nature. First, the large number of sentences, second the lack of balance, partly beteen the coordinated main clauses, partly between the coordinated subordinated clauses, third the dominance of the Anfügungsgesetz’)
| (2.12) | Wilhelm hatte während der Zeit seiner Regie das ganze Geschäft mit einer gewissen Freiheit und Liberalität behandelt, vorzüglich auf die Sache gesehen und besonders bei Kleidungen, Dekorationen und Requisiten alles reichlich und anständig angeschafft, auch, um den guten Willen der Leute zu erhalten, ihrem Eigennutze geschmeichelt, da er ihnen durch edlere Motive nicht beikommen konnte; und er fand sich hierzu um so mehr berechtigt, als Serlo selbst keine Ansprüche machte, ein genauer Wirt zu sein, den Glanz seines Theaters gerne loben hörte und zufrieden war, wenn Aurelie, welche die ganze Haushaltung führte, nach Abzug aller Kosten versicherte, daß sie keine Schulden habe, und noch soviel hergab, als nötig war, die Schulden abzutragen, die Serlo unterdessen durch außerordentliche Freigebigkeit gegen seine Schönen und sonst etwa auf sich geladen haben mochte. (J.W. Goethe Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahre) |
[2.74] Later Lehmann writes Sprachliche Studien über das Nibelungenlied (Lehmann 1856; Lehmann 1857) in which he again uses his system to analyse classical German literature. In the introduction he cites Nägelsbach (Lehmann 1856: 4) and Götzinger (Lehmann 1856: 7) and follows Nägelsbach simplification to use a comma instead of the horizontal brace (Lehmann 1857: 8).
[2.75] Lehmann’s examples of the application of the scheme on actual literary texts inspired many philological analyses in the decades to come. For example, via the Repetitorium of Menge (see Section 2.3.10) there is a direct line to the 1969 dissertation on the Amadisroman from Langholf (see Section 2.3.31) using similar graphical analyses as Lehmann.
[2.76] Maximilian Wilhelm Götzinger (1799–1856) was a teacher of German, most of his life working in Schaffhausen (Switzerland). He wrote extensively about grammar, literature and dialectology, see Olsson (2009) for an comprehensive appraisal of his work. Besides his didactic writings, Götzinger also provided material for Grimm’s dictionary project (Olsson 2009: 37) and he was even awarded a doctorate honoris causa from the University of Basel in 1838 (Olsson 2009: 36), probably through his personal contact with Wilhelm Wackernagel (the father of Jacob Wackernagel of Wackernagel’s law-fame).
[2.77] Götzinger’s early textbooks were already mentioned in Section 2.2.3, but these early books did not contain any graphical analyses of sentences. But then Götzinger discovered Lehmann’s Periodenbau (1833) and that changed everything. In 1835 Götzinger wrote a review of Lehmann’ book (Götzinger 1835b) and in the third edition of the Sprachlehre from 1835 he introduced Lehmann’s graphical displays. Götzinger cites the influence of Lehmann in the preface (Götzinger 1835a: xiii-xiv) and he applies Lehmann’s graphical analysis both to clause structure, under heading Stellungen der Bekleidung (Götzinger 1835a: 243-248), and to sentence structure, under the heading Stellung der Nebensätze (Götzinger 1835a: 310-315). Götzinger distinguishes these two applications of Lehmann’s analysis by using different names: Satzbild for clause structure and Periodenbild for larger sentence structures consisting of multiple clauses (Götzinger 1835a: 311).
[2.78] Contamporaneously to revising this textbook, Götzinger prepared his magnum opus Die deutsche Sprache und ihre Literatur (volume one 1836; volume two 1839). This book also includes many graphical analyses inspired by the Periodenbilder from Lehmann (see Section 2.3.3). In this book, Götzinger does not explicitly cite Lehmann as his inspiration for the graphical display, but he mentions Lehmann’s vortreffliches Buch (‘excellent book’) in a different context (Götzinger 1839: 217). I will use these two volumes of Die deutsche Sprache to summarise Götzinger’s interpretation of Lehmann’s approach.
[2.79] There are two main differences between Lehmann and Götzinger. First, Götzinger simplifies Lehmann’s quite elaborate use of different character set. Lehmann uses latin, greek, and fraktur letters, in upper- and lower-case, with different meanings. Götzinger only uses latin capitals for main clauses and latin lower-case letters for subordinate clauses. Second, Lehmann originally used his graphical method only for main and subordinated clauses (Periode), but Götzinger argues that the same principle of subordination (Unterordnung) can be used for other kinds of linguistic structure as well. Consequently, Götzinger uses Lehmann’s notation also for (i) syllabic structure, (ii) clause-internal structure and (iii) clause subordination.
Auf diese Weiße ordnet die Sprache bei allen Vorgängen den jedesmaligen Stoff so, daß ein Theil desselben als untergeordnet erscheint, in der Silbe die Laute, im Worte die Silben, im Satze die Worte, in der Periode die Sätze. (Götzinger 1836: 15)
(‘Accordingly, language arranges the particular content in all occurrences in such a way that one part of it appears as subordinated: with syllables the sounds, with words the syllables, with clauses the words, with sentences the clauses.’)
[2.80] First, for the analysis of the syllable, Götzinger (1836: 221-224) uses the capital letter for the vowel as the centre of the syllable (Träger und Mittelpunkt der Silbe) and lower-case letters for the consontants as dependent on the vowel (erscheint stets als untergeordnet). As long as the syllabic structure is according to the sonority hierarchy (musikalisches Gesetz), it can be described as (multiple) prefixal and suffixal subordinations, as illustrated in Figure 2.22. Extrasyllabic initial s and affricate codas ps, tsch and chs are illustrated with different structures not shown here (Götzinger 1836: 224).
In der Regel findet bei der Gliederung der Silbe durch fortschreitende Unterordnung der Elemente ein Schwellen und Sinken, ein Steigen und Fallen, ein Crescendo und Decrescendo statt; d.h. die Silbe fängt mit dem lautlosesten Element an, geht zu dem tönenenden über, gelangt zur eigentlichen Stimme, und geht nun denselben Weg wieder abwärts, so daß mithin in jeder auf diese Weiße gebaute Silbe ein völlig musikalisisches Gesetz statt findet. (Götzinger 1836: 222)
(‘Normally, the arrangement of the syllable consists, by repeated subordination of the elements, of swelling and sinking, of rising and falling, of crescendo and decrescendo; i.e. the syllable starts with the most silent element, proceeds to the more sounding one, reaches the principal voice, and then follows the same path downwards again in such a way that each such constructed syllable obeys a completely musical law.’)
[2.81] Second, for the analysis of the internal structure of a clause Götzinger proposes to use the same notation (Götzinger 1839: 159-162), which he calls Satzbilder (Götzinger 1839: 161). A few examples are shown in Figure 2.23. The capital letter now refers to the verb and the lower-case letters refer to the constituents. Götzinger calls the lower-cased elements Bekleidung. Today a German grammar would call them Satzglied. The German main clause structure with two verb positions is indicated by a repeated capital letter, called trennbare Zusammensetzung by Götzinger (1839: 160). Similar terminology can still be found in contemporaneous German grammars.
[2.82] Relative to the main verb, the three possible positions of the Bekleidung (i.e. before, in between and after the verb) are called Voraussendung, Anfügung, Einschiebung, respectively (Götzinger 1839: 160). They are indicated with a colon, a horizontal brace and round brackets in the tradition of Lehmann (see Section 2.3.3), who calls them Vorausschickung, Anfügung and Einschaltung. Today a German grammar would say Vorfeld, Nachfeld and Mittelfeld. Götzinger also observes one of the main generalisation of German main clause structure, namely that the Voraussendung/Vorfeld never consists of more than one Bekleidung/Satzglied.
Mag also die Stellung der Bekleidung in jenem Satze seyn, wie sie will, immer wird nur das Bild entstehen [mit einer Voraussendung]. Niemals kann die Folge vorkommen [mit mehreren Voraussendungen]. (Götzinger 1839: 162)
(‘Although the position of the constituents in the sentence can be as it chooses, the resulting image will always have a single Vorraussendung. The ordering with multiple Voraussendungen cannot occur.’)
[2.83] Third, for the analysis of the multi-clause sentence Götzinger again uses the same notation. He separates the analysis of basic subordination (Götzinger 1839: 364-367) from the analysis of the Periode (Götzinger 1839: 374-403). This distinction is not very clear, as he comments that der Begriff periode ist etwas schwankender Natur ‘the concept of the Periode has somewhat of a wavering nature’. He introduces the equal sign for coordination (Götzinger 1839: 366). A slighly complex Periodenbild is shown in Figure 2.24 for an example sentence (2.13) from Goethe.
| (2.13) | Wenn ich mich in einer mittleren oder großen Stadt umsehe und bemerke, wo denn die Menschen sich hinwenden, um ihren Abend zuzubringen: so findet sich immer, daß man dahin gehe, wo man grüßend begrüßt wird; wo man gerne hört und gehört wird; wo man beim gefelligen Gespräch und Spiel immer gewiß ist, seine Parthie zu finden. (Götzinger 1839: 391, citing Goethe) |
[2.84] Karl August Julius Hoffmann (1812-1869) was a schooldirector in Lüneburg. He wrote about such disparate topics as Homer, rhetoric, logic, and German grammar. In 1839 he published the first edition of his Neuhochdeutsche Schulgrammatik (Hoffmann 1839), which he revised in the second edition (Hoffmann 1856), but which did not get reprinted after that. In parallel, he also delivered a summarised version of the same work, the Neuhochdeutsche Elementargrammatik. This version was much more popular and got reprinted at least up to an eleventh edition in 1885. In the preface of the Schulgrammatik, he explicitly cites Becker (see Section 2.2.5) and Billroth (see Section 2.3.2): Unter den Grammatiken der fremden Sprachen verdanke ich der Lateinischen von Billroth am meisten ‘among the grammars of foreign language I owe most to is the Latin grammar of Billroth’ (Hoffmann 1839: xiii).
[2.85] In the Schulgrammatik, Hoffmann includes a graphical analysis of the example sentence in (2.14), see Figure 2.25 (Hoffmann 1839: 148). The graphical display is closely related to Billroth’s display in Figure 2.17. Subject and predicate are placed on top, though there is no connecting line in this case. All other modifiers are linked by lines going down. Note that this example even includes subordinated clauses, namely a relative clause welchen alle bewunderten and an adverbial clause ehe es Mittags geworden war. They are simply treated similar to all other modifiers.
| (2.14) | Tapfere Krieger jenes großen Feldherrn, welchen alle bewunderten, erfochten gestern, ehe es Mittags geworden war, eine glänzenden Sieg über ihre zahlreichen Feinde. |
[2.86] Lehmann also uses vertical lines to illustrate sentences complex consisting out of multiple clauses. Interestingly he separates this discussion of the syntactic analysis, under the heading mehrfacher Satz ‘multiple clause’ (1839: 148), from the section on the stilistic analysis, under the heading Periode. The example of mehrfacher Satz (2.15) is artificially contructed, and in a later edition Hoffmann adds a footnote to excuse for the stilistically bad example:
Die Periode steht hier nur der grammatischen Analyse halber. Stilistisch ist sie mangelhaft, weil viele gleichförmige Satzausgänge unmittelbar auf einander folgen, sobald man die Nebensätze an ihre richtie Stelle bringt. (Hoffmann 1856: 109)
(‘This Periode is only included here for the sake of the grammatical analysis. Stilistically she is defective, because many similarly formed subordinate endings follow each other immediately, when the subordinate clauses are placed in their rightfull position.’)
| (2.15) | Tilly war nicht nur berühmt, weil er, während in anderen Heeren die größte Unorndnung herrscht, die strengste Mannszucht hielt: sondern er konnte auch von sich rühmen, daß seine Soldaten, welche freilich ihren Führer, da dieser so unerbittlich streng war, mehr fürchteten, als liebten, nie eine Schlacht verloren hatte. |
[2.87] Hoffmann uses various devices in the graphical analysis of this complex sentence, though there are many unexplained features and apparently some inconsistencies:
[2.88] The second edition of the Schulgrammatik (Hoffmann 1853) takes over exactly the same graphics, but adds a few more examples of mehrfache Sätze (Hoffmann 1853: 216-217). And then, completely at the end of the book before the appendices, he adds the following comment in a small typeface, referring to the example sentence “Nr. 5” repeated below in (2.16):
Von Perioden kann man Bilder entwerfen, indem man die Hauptsätze mit A B C, die Nebensätze ersten Grades mit a b c, die Nebensätze zweiten Grades mit α β ɣ, die Nebensätze dritten Grades mit 𝔞 𝔟 𝔠 bezeichnet. So ist z.B. das Schema der eben unter Nr. 5 aufgeführten Periode folgendes: [ A a α A b β : B c. ] (Hoffmann 1853: 240)
(‘It is possible to draft pictures of Perioden by indicating main clauses with A B C, first level subordinate clauses with a b c, second level subordinate clauses with α β ɣ, third level subordinate clauses with 𝔞 𝔟 𝔠. In this way, for example, the scheme of the Periode Nr. 5 is [ A a α A b β : B c. ].’)
[2.89] The use of letters in different typefaces is clearly inspired by Lehmann (see Section 2.3.3), but Hoffmann removes all internal structure of the Periodenbild. The idea to simplify Lehmann’s notation to a single line might have been inspired by Nägelsbach (see Section 2.3.6), but even then Hoffmann left out most of the symbols for internal structure. All in all, this feels like an afterthought, which Hoffmann never expanded to in later editions of the Elementargrammatik.
| (2.16) | Es ist für denjenigen, der mit sich selbst noch nicht recht eins geworden ist, was er denn eigentlich suche und wolle, äußerst beängstigend, wenn er auf seinem Wege auf Sätze stößt, die allen seinen bisherigen Meinungen und den Meinungen seiner Zeitgenossen und der Vorwelt widersprechen: und gewiß ist diese Ängstlichkeit eine der Hauptursachen, warum die Menschheit auf dem Wege zur Wahrheit so langsame Forstschritte gemacht hat. (Hoffmann 1853: 239, citing Fichte) |
[2.90] In summary, Hoffmann tried to expand the proposals from Billroth by applying the grammatical line-graphics to subordinate clauses. Although his system is not well documented in his writings, it is comprehensible enough the be understood by experienced linguists. It has inspired at least Bauer (see Section 2.3.8) and Kern (Section 2.3.17) to further develop the idea of line-based gramatical analyses.
[2.91] Carl Friedrich Nägelsbach (1806-1859) was professor for classical studies in Erlangen. He wrote various commentaries on classical texts and a didactic explanation of Latin style, called Lateinische Stilistik für Deutsche, ein sprachvergleichender Versuch (Nägelsbach 1846). The book saw various editions up to a ninth edition in 1905, prepared by Iwan Müller.
[2.92] In the Lateinische Stilistik Nägelsbach uses Periodenbilder to analyse latin constructions, citing both Lehmann (Nägelsbach 1846: 281) and Götzinger (Nägelsbach 1846: 282) as inspiration. He simplifies the structure of the Periodenbild to be able to write them on a single line, using slashes instead of horizontal braces, as illustrated in Figure 2.27 (Nägelsbach 1846: 286).
[2.93] Another innovation proposed by Nägelsbach is to use brackets for relative modification. Specifically, he notes that in Laten it is quite common to have multiple Vordersätze, i.e. clauses in front of the main clause, as indicated by the colon. Because of the ordering of modification, Nägelsbach proposed Periodenbilder like “a:(b:A)” and even “a:(b:[c:A])” for nested frontal clauses (Nägelsbach 1846: 286, 289).
[2.94] 1: urn:nbn:de:bvb:384-uba007175-0 2: urn:nbn:de:bvb:384-uba007176-6 3: urn:nbn:de:bvb:384-uba007177-1 4: https://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:384-uba007178-6
[2.95] Johann Baptist Fürg (1802-1864) was a teacher in München. Not much is known about him, except for a glowing necrolog (Heitz 1864). He wrote various small booklets for use in school, among them a four volume grammar Die deutche Sprache (1850)
[2.96] fourth edition, unclear first edition (1845, explained in intro!). Numbered tables like becker, no attribution (Fürg 1847: vi-viii) probably new in this edition
[2.97] Die deutsche Sprache dargestellt in Aufgaben sammt den nöthigsten Erläuterungen für die Volksschulen Bayerns in four volumes (1850)
[2.98] Friedrich Bauer (1812-1874) studied theology and was the founding director of a missionary education centre in the Bavarian city of Neuendettelsau. This institute is still active today as Mission EineWelt. Among other duties, Bauer also taught religion and German grammar at his institute (Fuchshuber-Weiß 2013: 93). In that context he wrote the Grundzüge der neuhochdeutschen Grammatik für die unteren und mittleren Klassen höherer Bildungsanstalten, which was first published in 1850. Bauer himself delivered various editions of this book up to his death in 1874.
[2.99] summary of many editions in (Fuchshuber-Weiß 2013: 128-131)
[2.100] After Bauer’s death, the German dictionary maker Konrad Duden kept producing new editions of this grammar with only very minor changes. The Neuhochdeutsche Grammatik remained popular and has seen at least 27 editions, including special editions for Austria, for protestant schools and for catholic schools. The last edition was published in 1912 (Fuchshuber-Weiß 2013: 115-117, 128-131). However, even that was not the end, as Bauer’s text was given a second life. In the century since the death of Konrad Duden in 1911, Duden’s dictionary became a household name in Germany for everything related to the German language. In 1935, under the auspice of Otto Basler, the 11th Edition of the Duden dictionary was expanded with a German grammar (Basler 1935), which was basically a new edition of Bauer’s Neuhochdeutsche Grammatik, which still includes the graphical analysis (without clear attribution to Bauer). Only after the Second World War was the grammar completely rewritten and new editions of that new Duden grammar are still popular today. The graphical display was removed from this rewritten Duden grammar.
[2.101] (Bauer knew Hoffmann’s grammar, (Fuchshuber-Weiß 2013: 99))
[2.102] In the grammatical analysis of complex sentences, Bauer (1850: 94-97) uses a graphical display in the tradition of Lehmann (see Section 2.3.3), although he does not explicitly cite him (Maybe Bauer got it from Götzinger?). The first similarity is that Bauer’s analysis only deals with the relation between main and subordinate clauses, not clause-internal structure. Second, and most telling, Bauer follows Lehmann’s convention to use capital letters for main sentences and lower-case letters for subordinate sentences. And finally, after a few pages of examples, Bauer comments, almost as an afterthought, that this analysis is called periode, a clear implicit reference to Lehmann (and his inspiration, Herling (1823)).
Die künstmäßige Gliederung mehrerer Sätze in beigeordneter oder untergeordneter Verbindung zu einem ganzen heißt man Periode (‘The artful arrangement of multiple sentences in coordinate or subordinate juncture into a whole is called Periode,’ Bauer 1850: 97, translation MC).
[2.103] Term “Satzbild” not in first edition of 1850, but introduced later, at least in sixth edition (Bauer 1863)
[2.104] The first few basic examples of Bauer’s syntactic analysis are shown in Figure 2.28 (Bauer 1850: 95). These examples are also found in exactly the same layout 85 years later in Basler (1935: 254). Each sentence is analyzed in two ways: the text itself is subdivided into clauses, with subordinate clauses shifted down vertically and connected with lines (is this inspired by Hoffmann?). Additionally, there are structural analyses in the form of letters, with capital letters for main clauses and lower-case letters for subordinate clauses. First-level subordination is separated by a comma, while secondary or deeper subordination is indicated by vertical lines (and sometimes numerical superscripts). The vertical arrangement is clearly borrowed from Lehmann (although Bauer leaves out the horizontal brace from Lehmann), but the superscripts indicate that Bauer also took notice of Herling’s notation (cf. Section 2.2.2).
[2.105] Different lower-case letters, just like Herling, though the letters are different! (Bauer 1850: 94). “verkürzte” subordinate clauses have dashes -a-, -b-, -c-, but he later notes that this is supposed to be a strikethrough (Bauer 1863: footnote on p. 145)
[2.106] This analysis is rather similar to a constituency analysis with the abstract letters indicating the node labels and the clauses being the leaves. Specifically, subordination is not linked to an explicit superordinate word (i.e. to a head as in a dependency analysis), but to a superordinate abstract entity.
[2.107] A more complex example discussed by Bauer is the sentence (2.17), analyzed as Figure 2.29 (Bauer 1850: 97). Again, there is both an analysis of all main and subordinate clauses, written out with subordination marked by vertical lines, and there is a structural pattern with letters and symbols in the bottom right. This structural pattern has two cases of coordination (marked by a plus symbol), an internal subordination (marked by the brackets), a secondary subordination (marked by a vertical line) and a subordination at the end of the sentence (marked by a comma). I have attempted to combine both these analysis into a single constituency tree as shown in Figure 2.30. The structural pattern has been used as the node-labels, while the text itself are the leaves in the tree. Probably it would have been more accurate to analyze the subordination c as a simple frontal embedding of the second conjunct, using a comma in the analysis instead of brackets for a clause-internal embedding (viz. A+c,A,a+a instead of A+A(c)A,a+a), but that is some minor nitpicking.
| (2.17) | Er schenkte ihr 300 Rubel und als er erfuhr, daß sie in Petersburg einen Vetter habe, stellte er ihre frei, ob sie ihre Reise fortsetzen oder ob sie umkehren wolle. (Bauer 1850: 97) |
[2.108] Expansion of notation at least since the 6th edition (Bauer 1863: 144-150)
[2.109] In this edition he also promises to write a more extensive explanation of his notation, but he never seems to have done this.
Es ergeben sich die manchfaltigsten Gestalten von Sätzen von der einfachsten Schreibart an bis zur compliciertesten. Die Darstellung solcher Satzbilder durch Formeln ist äußert lehrreich und förderlich, sowohl für das Verständnis scherer Sätze, als für das Schreiben. […] Solche Formeln zur Darstellung von Satzbildern zu geben, muß sich der Verfaßer vorbehalten für eine besondere kleine Schrift, welche eine Ergänzung der Syntax für eine höhere Lehrstufe bilden soll. (Bauer 1863: 128)
[2.110] Periode like Lehmann, §194-195, cited here in the 3rd edition (Wetzel & Wetzel 1871: 312-316)
[2.111] Almost identical, just a bit shorter and streamlined, in Leitfaden, first edition 1868 (Wetzel & Wetzel 1868: 182), also in the 46th edition (Wetzel & Wetzel 1871: 223-224)
[2.112] Hermann August Menge (1841-1939), teacher and translator of the infamous Menge-Bibel. Based on his practical teaching experience, he wrote textbooks for Latin and Greek. The Latin textbook is still in use today, though in a slightly revised version (e.g. a 1955 edition is cited in Langholf 1969: 10).
[2.113] Lehmann Periode in §541-542, cited here in the 6th edition (Menge 1890: 357-364). In the preface to the first edition he cites among others Hoffmann (but not Nägelsbach), and the other preface do not mention any changes as far as the Periode is concerned, so it is very probable that the Period analysis was already present in the first edition of 1873.
[2.114] Theodor Gelbe (1837-1892), Realschuldirektor in Stollberg. Satzbild like Götzinger (Gelbe 1877: 150-153) historical survey of satzbilder (Gelbe 1880)
[2.115] Josef Diringer (1878-1883) Ordinarius für Deutsch, Latein und Griechisch in Eichstätt
[2.116] practical application in second half of the book (Diringer 1878: 42-60) using separate lines for subordination, like music notation
[2.117] Further development of Periodenbild citing Bauer, Lehmann and Götzinger, and Becker, Herling
[2.118] Franz Esser (Oberlehrer Gymnasium Weissenburg) citing Götzinger, but using dashes instead of horizontal braces (Esser 1878)
[2.119] Daniel Sanders (1819-1897) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Sanders_(Lexikograf)
[2.120] Satzbild (Sanders 1879) Periode: 228 and various more
[2.121] Satzbilder (Blatz 1880: 866-871) in Introduction mentions Becker, Sanders
[2.122] Karl Zettel (1831-1904), Gymnasium Regensburg, Satzbild like Götzinger (Zettel 1882: 85-87)
[2.123] Franz Kern (1830-1894) (Kern 1883)
[2.124] “ein Beckersches Formwort” (p70) cites “Hoffmann in seiner Neuhochd. Elementargramm.” (p57) cites “Sanders Lehrbuch der deutschen Sprache für Schulen” (p43)
[2.125] Kern cites Hoffmann (Kern 1888), but only in the second edition after he already published his “tree” metaphors. The idea for the “trees” is already in “Satzlehre”, finished in December 1882, and practically applied in “Methodik” of 1883.
[2.126] “So steht in der von Erdmann mit Recht gelobten Grammatik von Hoffmann” (1888: 159)
[2.127] Influence from Götzinger? (Forsgren 1998: 63) only circumstantial evidence
[2.128] Franz Willomitzer (1847-1910)
[2.129] First edition only a single simple table (Becker-influence?) (Willomitzer 1879: 123)
[2.130] Later editions add Satzbilder very much in the style of Kern (without clear attribution), starting with fourth edition from 1885 (Willomitzer 1885: 123, 132, 137)
[2.131] improved in the example in the 6th edition (Willomitzer 1894: 114, 121, 127)
[2.132] (no change yet in 3rd edition 1882 http://data.onb.ac.at/rep/131CF155)
[2.133] There is also a different notation for Periode, which uses letters, but different from all others, already in first edition (Willomitzer 1879: 157-158), slightly changed in later editions (Willomitzer 1894: 154-155)
[2.134] Revised by Johann Tschinkel after the death of Willomitzer, later renamed as Deutsche Sprachlehre für Mittelschulen, reprinted and revised up to a 23th edition in 1930. The table is gone, and only a single unexplained Satzbild remains (Tschinkel 1921: 242).
[2.135] Heinrich Utzinger (1842-1913) Zürich (Utzinger 1887)
[2.136] probably influences by hoffmann, though he does not cite him in the introduction (he cites götzinger Anfangsgründe)
[2.137] Otto Lyon (1853-1912) Stadtschulrat in Dresden
[2.138] simple analysis of constituents with numbers (Lyon 1889: 101) Satzbilder like Lehmann (Lyon 1889: 269-270)
[2.139] more extensive in Lektüre als Grundlage Satzbilder wie Hoffmann (Lyon 1897: 130-154)
[2.140] Handbuch has seen many revision and editions. The 8th edition from 1919 (strongly revised) includes Utzinger-style tree graphic (Lyon 1919: 122, 136). The section about Satzbilder under the heading Periode (Lyon 1919: 196-198) is verbatim identical to the 1889 version.
[2.141] Béla Kuderna (1846-1915), Hauptmann in the austrian army and teacher for german language and style at the Infanterie-Cadetenschule in Vienna.
[2.142] two Satzbilder (Kuderna 1893: 268-269)
[2.143] Hariton Tiktin (1850-1936) was born in Breslau (Wrocław), but moved to Iași in Romania at the age of 18, where he worked as a teacher. He wrote a dissertation in Leipzig and worked as a lecturer at the Humboldt-University Berlin
[2.144] (Tiktin 1895[1891]: 206-207) second edition, but difference to first edition (1891) unknown
[2.145] Heinrich Gloël, Gymnasiallehrer in Wesel
[2.146] Satzbilder (Gloël 1895: 75)
[2.147] Lehrer in Salzburg, later Ried im Innkreis
[2.148] Many Satzbilder, probably tradition Hoffmann (Toifel 1897)
[2.149] Later the same with another text: (Toifel 1901)
[2.150] inspired by Kern
[2.151] Siegmund von Raumer (1860-1939), Gymnasiallehrer in Erlangen
[2.152] New proposal for Periode, reaction to Lehmann and subsequent proposals. Very short, only one example of his proposal (using multiple lines) (Raumer 1902: 63)
[2.153] Gustav Schuberth (1850-1922), Schuldirektor in Großenhain (Schuberth 1908)
[2.154] Konrad Bessel Erman (1888-)
[2.155] Dissertation Beziehungen zwischen Stellung und Funktion der Nebensätze mehrfacher Unterordnung im Althochdeutschen (Erman 1913)
[2.156] cites (Lehmann 1856; Esser 1878; Toifel 1897; Toifel 1901)
[2.157] Wilhelm Pfannkuchen (1887-), dissertation in Giessen with Otto Behagel (Pfannkuchen 1914), teacher in Darmstadt. cites Kern, Gelbe, Lehmann, but seems mainly influenced by (Lehmann 1852)
| (2.18) | Und hast du dem Befehle deines Gottes, Der in des Feld dich rief, genug getan So wirst du deine Waffen von dir legen Und wiederkehren zu dem sanfteren Geschlecht, das du verleugnet hast, das nicht Berufen ist zum blut’gen Werk der Waffen. (Schiller, Jungfrau von Orleans) |
[2.158] example p.60
[2.159] Lotte Müller (1893-1972) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlotte_Müller_(Pädagogin)
[2.160] cited second edition (Müller 1922: 49) one tree example like Kern, with verb on top, but strange position of the subject.
[2.161] Deutsche Sprachkunde in der Arbeitsschule, Leipzig 1923
[2.162] (Langholf 1969: 10) own version of Periodenbau, cites Menge as inspiration!
[2.163] Erich Drach (1885-1935) (Drach 1937)
[2.164] Erika Essen (1914-1986) bio (Müller 1996)
[2.165] (Essen 1956; Essen 1958) very nice curved lines!
[2.166] https://www.lagis-hessen.de/de/subjects/print/sn/bio/id/18993
[2.167] (Grosse 1960) indented subordinates clauses (Grosse 1966) many modern approaches
[2.168] (Rychener 1960)
[2.169] (Rychener 1982) Many different ideas by Rychener: underlining of clause-internal structure (Rychener 1982: 150-151), Becker-style tables (Rychener 1982: 178), tab-inserts (Rychener 1982: 176), Vertical displacement of clause-combinations like Flothuis (Rychener 1982: 189)
[2.170] Satzbilder with lines in (Lobentanzer 1986: 60, 72-73)
[2.171] (Stöhr 1898)
[2.172] Adolf Stamm (1857-???)
[2.173] (1896 Oberlehrer in Iserlohn, 1911 erster Leiter des staatlichen Gymnasiums in Mülheim an der Ruhr?)
[2.174] idisyncratic graphics (Stamm 1899) critique of Stamm: (Arens 1902) (other reaction to Stamm: (Mossner 1960))
[2.175] Johann Eberhard (1838-?)
[2.176] (Direktor in Sigmaringen in 1889?)
[2.177] new proposal as a reaction to Adolf Stamm (1899) (Eberhard 1905)
Das die graphische Darstellung ein erwünschtes Mittel ist, um Übersicht über ein verwickeltes Satzbilde zu erzielen, unterliegt keinem Zweifel. Nach meinen Erfahrungen bringen alle Schüler, auch die Minderbefähigten, der bezeichneten Darstellung ein großes Interesse entgegen – gewiss ein wichtiges Moment bei dem trockenen Lehrstoff! Die graphische Darstellung solcher Sätze, die in der Schule zergeliedert sind, ist deshalb auch eine viel begehrte Hausaufgabe. (Eberhard 1905: 284)
[3.1] “Normal schools” < école normale, education for teachers!
[3.2] Greene (1836) A practical grammar of the English language “diagram” of tenses, not syntactic structure https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roscoe_Greene https://google.com/books?id=PI4VAQAAMAAJ
[3.3] Blackboard in schools only starting in 1830s “As late as 1835 the idea of using slates and blackboards was exceedingly novel; in only a few schools does it appear to have been attempted before this time” (Lyman 1922: 148)
In the study of Grammar the blackboard may be used to exhibit the inflections of the various parts of speech; it may also be used in syntax, to point out the connection of the principal words to each other. The method of doing this is by writing on the board the sentence to be parsed, and then connecting by curved lines those words that have any grammatical connection with each other. The instructor at the same time pointing out what that relation is. (James Ray 1830, cited in Lyman 1922: 148, emphasis added)
The method of illustrating the principles of syntax employed in the following treatise, is one which has been, for a number of years, advantageously used in the instruction of the deaf and dumb. […] The first notions of the writer regarding it, were obtained while he was engaged as an instructor in the American Asylum, at Hartford, in the years 1831 and 1832. The method, which it at present exhibits, has been, however, the result of a more recent labor, during the writer’s residence, in a corresponding capacitiy, at the New York Institution for the Instruction of the Deaf and Dumb. (Barnard 1836: iii)
[3.4] Analytic Grammar; With Symbolic Illustration. New York: E. French. https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/008991837 No trees, but “symbolic sentences” in which categories are marked. Some ideas of levels http://www.polysyllabic.com/?q=node/336. Developed at school for the deaf in Hartford! based on l’epee/sicard “. This development seems to be linked to deaf-education, see (Wing 1887: 86)
[3.5] Francis A. March, A Parser and Analyzer for Beginners, with Diagrams and Suggestive Pictures (1869). http://www.polysyllabic.com/?q=olddiagrams/clarkderiv thanks to: Richard Salter Storrs (deaf education in hartford, mentioned in preface of March 1869), see (Williams & Harding 1885: 102)
[3.6] (Storrs 1880a; Storrs 1880b; Storrs 1881)
[3.7] (Wing 1885) further development of storrs/peet symbols for the deaf (which were also the basis for March 1869)
[3.8] (Wilbur & Livingston 1814) pictures for word classes. the “chart” mentioned could be this one: https://lccn.loc.gov/2020768232 (not digital)
[3.9] (Wilbur 1821) The grammatical key same picture for word classes, but apparently not used to draw pictures of sentences. In sentence analysis the numbers are used for parsing word classes. symbols and numbers are changed from the 1814 version
[3.10] word “chart” replaced by “atlas” in furthermore exactly the same sentences.
[3.11] “Construing consists in dividing a sentence into sections or groups, ascertaining their true constructive relation, learning their exact significant characters, and referring the inferior sections to their respective superiors.” (p. xii)
[3.12] (West 2000: 91-109)
[3.13] no graphics, but very concise description of dependency structure
In analyzing a proposition, it is first to be divided into its logical subject and predicate.
If the logical subject consists of more than one word, its grammatical subject should be pointed out, and distinguished as simple or compound.
When the grammatical subject is determined, the words which modify or limit it should next be specified, and then the words which modify them, and so on, until the logical subject is exhausted.
In analyzing the logical predicate, the grammatical predicate should first be mentioned, then the words which modify or limit it, and their modifiers, until the logical predicate is exhausted. [Andrews & S. (1836): 254-255
| (3.1) | Mithridātes, duārum et viginti gentium rex, totǐdem linguis jura dixit |
The logical subject is Mithridātes duārum et viginti gentium rex.
The logical predicate is totǐdem linguis jura dixit.
The grammatical subject is Mithridātes: this is modified by rex. Rex is limited by gentium, which is itself limited by duārum and viginti. Et connects duārum and viginti.
The grammatical predicate is dixit, which is limited by jura and linguis, and the latter by totǐdem. (Andrews & S. 1836: 255-256)
[3.14] parsing inspired by Brown???
[3.15] (Barrett 1837) system of parsing (introduced to the learner in the preface vii-viii), key to analysis p. 29, parsing explained p31. Text of later image on p. 33.
[3.16] “scanning” on page 113.
[3.17] slightly different title, but probably just a new edition(Barrett 1845) insert between p.18 and 19. Parsing of the examples by letters, p.18-31
[3.18] (Barrett 1857), same graphic plate beween p18 and p19. Parsing exemplified p66-75
[3.19] new plates: at start, before p85 in latin
[3.20] note morpheme-separation by dashes in Latin p.125-131
[3.21] new book (Barrett 1859) proposing 21 different relations (p.28), the numbers are written to each word when parsing a sentence
[3.22] “chains” on p. 50, 52, 140 (Peirce 1839)
[3.23] “as the dependence of words in a sentence is more fully illustrated by the following figurative exemplifications, the pupil should study them till he shall be able, without difficulty, to apply to them any simple sentences that he shall find.” (Peirce 1839: 47)
[3.24] “immediate dependence” vs. “intermediate connection” (p. 141)
[3.25] numbered example sentences p. 233-241, there appears to be some implicit hierarchical ordering, but no clear explanation. Maybe numbering like Brown?
[3.26] Samuel Stillman Greene (1810-1883)
[3.27] cited here in printing from 1849. graphics “formula for a sentence” (Greene 1849: 70, 82, 111, 120, 167, 184) meaning of digits is unclear
[3.28] Later different systems, e.g.
[3.29] “Monology” inspired by Brown! Numbering to indicate constituents (“monos”) (Hall 1850: 197-305). Also bracketing with square and round brackets.
[3.30] identical in 1849 version. bad scan at https://archive.org/details/encyclopediaofen00hall/page/296/mode/2up?q=monology
[3.31] Not the same person as William D. Hall from 1898 diagrams.
[3.32] coincidence “monème” by Henri Frei La grammaire des fautes (1929) ???
[3.33] Stephen W. Clark (1810-1901) was a school principal of East Bloomfield Academy and wrote the influential book The science of the English language. A practical grammar: in which words, phrases, and sentences are classified according to their offices, and their various relations to one another. Illustrated by a complete system of diagrams. (Clark 1847) He produced revisions of this book and wrote variants for different readers up to the 1870s [e.g Clark (1870), see (Mazziotta 2016: 303-305 for the little that is known about Clark). A detailed investigation of the work of Clark is available in Mazziotta (2016; 2020b; 2020a).
[3.34] It remains unclear whether Clark has had any sources of inspiration for his graphical display. In the preface he writes that he has been testing his method at least since 1840. The “chains” of Pierce (1839)
for the convenience of teachers a manuscript grammar was prepared, which embodied the principles of the science and the Author’s mode of presenting it. These principles and this method have been properly tested by numerous and advanced classes during the seven years last past. (Clark 1847: iii)
[3.35] Term office ~ syntactic function?
[3.36] He uses the term diagram
[3.37] adjuncts are hanging, but also enclosed as boxes on p17!
[3.38] (Clark 1847) very interesting frontispiece in the first edition! Is later sold separately as a poster for schools
[3.39] graphical analysis (Holbrook 1859: 174), citing “Brown’s rules of syntax” (Holbrook 1859: 165), probably Goold Brown. He also cites “Clark’s grammar, revised edition”
[3.40] complete grammar in 1873, same diagrams (Holbrook 1873: 145-151)
[3.41] nicer scan here (later version, same examples): https://archive.org/details/newenglishgramma00holb/page/224/
[3.42] 1860 (Chandler 1860) version has no diagrams, added in revised edition 1861 (Chandler 1861)
[3.43] “models for black board exercises” (p151-160) very clear inspiration for later Reed/Kellog (Reed/Kellog say in introduction that their system arose in 1868, so clearly later than chandler)
[3.44] Richard Brantley York (1805-1891) Brantley York was an educator, author, and Methodist clergyman in North Carolina. He organized Union Institute Academy at Brown’s Schoolhouse in Randolph Co., N.C. in 1839, which would evolve into Normal College, Trinity College, and later Duke University.
[3.45] not yet found: (1854) An illustrative and constructive grammar of the English language
[3.46] first edition of Analytical grammar from 1860
[3.47] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brantley_York
[3.48] 1862: 38, 39 (note brackets and numbers like Brown???)
[3.49] https://archive.org/details/analyticalillust00york
[3.50] p.21 !!!
[3.51] https://archive.org/details/yorksenglishgra00york/page/20/mode/2up?q=diagram
[3.52] https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/011199495
[3.53] diagram, tree metaphor in pictures
[3.54] https://books.google.de/books?id=BdIOAQAAMAAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&printsec=frontcover&hl=de#v=onepage&q=diagram&f=false
[3.55] following clark (1847)
[3.56] https://google.com/books?id=dmwVAQAAMAAJ
[3.57] no graphics in (Burtt 1859)
[3.58] (Burtt 1868) cites chandler in introduction (though not about graphics). completely revised and new diagrams (Burtt 1868: 263-279), improved from Chandler
[3.59] same in (Burtt 1873: 126-136), variant of Chandler
[3.60] William Henry Parker, original not yet found (Brittain 1973: 53)
[3.61] original not yet found (Brittain 1973: 67)
[3.62] https://bsky.app/profile/coffeeanddonatus.bsky.social/post/3kifj7o36bu2i https://nationallibraryofeducation.on.worldcat.org/search/detail/974041820?queryString=chamberlin%20natural%20system%20grammar&clusterResults=true&groupVariantRecords=false
[3.63] probably G.E. Lighthall (1872) Introduction to analysis and parsing with bubbles, original not yet found (Brittain 1973: 73)
[3.64] (Lighthall 1874), clark but without bubbles, just underline
[3.65] originally A practical grammar from 1845 without diagrams, see https://google.com/books?id=-khKAAAAIAAJ for 1846 revision (Butler 1846) note: “The rules for the Analysis of Sentences have been taken, with some changes, from Andrews and Stoddard’s Latin Grammar” (preface p.3) examples like Andrews/Stoddard on p220-221
[3.66] revised edition with slightly different name, with diagramming like Holbrook (Butler 1874: 178-187). Also interesting footnote in preface p5.
[3.67] Revised edition with original name A practical grammar in 1879 with diagrams (Butler 1879: 168-177)
[3.68] https://www.letsdiagram.com https://natureofwriting.com/course/diagramming-sentences
[3.69] Thomas Wadleigh Harvey (1821-1892)
[3.70] practical grammar (Harvey 1868) no graphics. revised practical grammar (Harvey 1878: 266-272) with diagram like reed/kellog
[3.71] ??? not found: Harvey (1900) A new English grammar for schools (Brittain 1973: 178). Note that there is a 1900 revision of the elementary grammar by Louise Connolly https://lccn.loc.gov/00002828
[3.72] original elementary grammar (1869) https://lccn.loc.gov/11006142
[3.73] first attempt (Lyte 1879)
[3.74] expanded later in (Lyte 1899; Lyte 1898; Lyte 1886)
[3.75] William Francis Lewis Sanders (1849-1930)
[3.76] Born on Sept. 12, 1849, in Maxville, Ind., William Francis Lewis Sanders is the son of Jonas Bedford and Delphena Nevitt Sanders. He received the B.A. degree (1873) from Indiana University. On March, 10 1875, he married Fannie Taylor and they had five children: Pearl, Bertram, Emma Allison, Mabel Rosalie, and Earl Prentiss. Sanders held various teaching and administrative positions in Indiana public schools at Owensville, Bloomington Cambridge City, New Albany, and Connersville . He died on Oct. 8, 1930.
[3.77] 1879 book not yet found, see (Brittain 1973: 89)
[3.78] 1891 The English sentence diagrams included at (Sanders 1891: 68-end)
[3.79] first edition 1881, cited here revised edition from 1885. Diagramming (Eubank 1885: 113-200) “brace system”
[3.80] original not yet found (Brittain 1973: 102) only cover page here from 1888 edition: https://digital.klnpa.org/digital/collection/philips/id/8878/
[3.81] vertical analysis (Raub 1880a: 129-156) “written analysis”
[3.82] also (Raub 1880b; Raub 1885) both referring to the first book as the origin. 1885 seems most comprehensive summary
[3.83] (Adams 1882) based on Holbrook and Harvey. Says Holbrook approach is widespread in America ?!
[3.84] (Vaughn 1883: 82-end) following reed/kellog
[3.85] reed/kellog-style (Patterson 1884: 206-220)
[3.86] (Sornberger 1884: 80) vertical SP-diagram like Holbrook (author is from a “Normal school”)
[3.87] Frank Van Buren Irish (Irish 1884) like reed/kellog
[3.88] “sander’s system of diagrams’ preface p. iii, note that Harvey has many diagrams himself
[3.89] original not yet found (Brittain 1973: 118)
[3.90] Isaac Eldridge Wilson
word-class tree: p. 488, 494 (see Blanchard: Wood 2000: 138, originally 1847? https://catalog.mwa.org/vwebv/holdingsInfo?searchId=3288&recPointer=0&recCount=10) https://www.loc.gov/item/2018757044/
diagramming: (Wilson 1886: 544-554)
[3.91] Alfred H. Welsh (1850-1889)
[3.92] no graphical analysis:
[3.93] graphing:
[3.94] after death, edited by greenwood, based on welsh’ “lessons” 1887:
[3.95] diagramming (Rigdon 1887: 13-26, 58-68)
[3.96] Grammar of the English sentence (1890) diagramming like reed/kellog p.167
[3.97] https://books.google.de/books?id=dJAOAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=de#v=onepage&q&f=false
[3.98] Harris R. Greene (Greene 1889: 36, 41, 49, etc.). combination of “reverse” tree and symbols below the worlds.
[3.99] first printing from 1888, cited here unchanged 1889 version
[3.100] earlier books do not seem to have graphics
[3.101] Judson Perry Welsh (1857-1934) Bloomsburg normal school president 1890-1906, https://library.bloomu.edu/pages/Archives/Presidents/Welsh.html
[3.102] thanks teacher Francis A. March at lafayette college in the preface (p. v). diagram (Welsh 1889: 29ff.)
[3.103] rather different kind of diagrams from the other traditions. Own invention? Grammar based on Goold Brown. (Kiddle 1889: 44-)
[3.104] word-analysis (phonetics, orthography, syllables), parsing (word classes, morphology), sentence-analysis (syntax, “scheme” p.304), scanning (prosody)
[3.105] “They [the authors] also claim, as a new and good feature, the Syntax Tree; which follows and, as an illustration, explains Sentence-analysis in Part Third.” (p. vi)
[3.106] tree-analysis p326-336. Note words ARE the branches!
[3.107] diagrams for english in first part called Inductive studies in English grammar (Harper & Burgess 1891: 42-43)
[3.108] Later separate book has similar diagrams (Harper & Burgess 1894: 59-60) in preface they cite grammars of Whitney, Meiklejohn, Salmon (Longman’s grammar???) and Welsh (which Welsh???)
[3.109] William Henry Maxwell (1852-1920) (Maxwell 1891)
[3.110] analysis simple sentences similar to reed/kellog but not identiacl 52-58, complex sentence completely different, using template-boxes among other methods: 280-297
[3.111] original not yet found (Brittain 1973: 151)
[3.112] (Robbins 1893) note: “revised edition”, but earlier version cannot be found. Vertical diagrams all throughout
[3.113] original not yet found (Brittain 1973: 156)
[3.114] Inductive Grammar. A Manual of Direction for the Study of English based on the Practical Grammar of Noble Butler by J. T. Gaines, O. B. Theiss
[3.115] Note very short mentioning of Butler with a single unexplained grammatical diagram on p43 of Principles in teaching (1891) https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/009568553
[3.116] diagrams (Buck 1894: 15-16, 111, 136)
[3.117] more extensive subordination diagrams (Buck 1900: 16-17, 117-118, 143)
[3.118] diagrams (Park 1894: 14, 16, etc.) cite Sanders for diagrams (p5)
[3.119] also (Park 1898: 107-109, 114-118)
[3.120] first edition from 1895, not yet found.
[3.121] Preface to the second edition (1896) says “a simple system of diagrams has been added” (p6). Cited here is the third edition (1897)
[3.122] The aim should be, not to diagram the sentence, but to analyze it. The diagram is only an aid to analysis. (p8)
[3.123] Diagramming (Hoenschel 1897a: 65-66), and throughout.
[3.124] Many more diagrams in the teacher’s companion (Hoenschel 1897b)
[3.125] diagrams (Hall 1898: 174-183) not the same Hall from “monology” in 1849
[3.126] diagrams (Bartlett 1899)
[3.127] David Salmon originally wrote School grammar (Salmon 1890), which was reissued as Longman’s school grammar (1891). This grammar does not contain any graphical analysis of sentences
[3.128] George J. Smith revised the book as Longman’s English grammar, though most of the text still is Salmon’s original. However, Smith (or somebody) added the graphical analysis (Salmon 1901: 266-271)
[3.129] In 1988 a completely different grammar appeared under the name Longman English grammar by L.G. Alexander. No graphical analysis.
[3.130] (Garrison 1901)
[3.131] refers to examples from English grammar for common schools, Robert C. Metcalf & Thomas Metcalf (1894) they give no diagrams https://archive.org/details/englishgrammarfo0000robe
[3.132] (Harris 1903a; Harris 1903b)
[3.133] two books, many diagrams like reed/kellogg
[3.134] based on Goold Brown, but with diagrams (Hall 1904: 36-39, 51, 57-59, 85-90, 93, 100)
[3.135] (Eastman 1904: 194-210)
[3.136] hand-drawn diagrams (White 1904: 26, 55, 60, etc.)
[3.137] redd/kellog style, but with boxes (Baker 1907: 248-254)
[3.138] Book II. An elementary English grammar, by G.L. Kittredge and S.L. Arnold (Arnold, Sarah Louise, 1859-1943; Kittredge, George Lyman, 1860-1941)
[3.139] Original does not have diagramming: (Kittredge & Arnold 1900)
[3.140] Revised edtion (1908) added appendic with diagrams (Kittredge & Arnold 1908: 338-349) with special symbols, moving upwards instead of downwards
[3.141] not yet found (Brittain 1973: 200)
[3.142] many examples of redd/kellog style diagrams (Edgar 1915: 9-66)
[3.143] graphic analysis
[3.144] https://archive.org/details/grammarbookone00perr https://archive.org/details/grammarbooktwo00perr https://archive.org/details/grammarbookthree00perr https://archive.org/details/grammarbookfour00perr
[3.145] reed/kellog with arrows! (Cross 1922: 105-116)
[3.146] https://lccn.loc.gov/28010886
[3.147] reed/kellog again (House & Harman 1931: 145-325)
[3.148] not yet found (Brittain 1973: 204)
[3.149] not yet found (Brittain 1973: 206)
[3.150] not yet found (Brittain 1973: 209)
[3.151] Original from 1946 difficult to find. Still in use today. contains redd/kellog throughout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warriner%27s_English_Grammar_and_Composition
[3.152] edition from 1986: https://archive.org/details/englishgrammarco00holt
[3.153] Edition from 1969 (Warriner 1969)
[3.154] Raymond Woodbury Pence
[3.155] many reprints, later with Donald William Emery
[3.156] diagramming identical to reed/kellog (Pence 1947: 311-368)
[3.157] Hypothesis that Wundt influenced Bloomfield: (Percival 1976: 234-235 gives various detailed arguments)
[3.158] not much effect in German linguistics, but see Delbrück 136ff https://books.google.de/books?id=BAQLAAAAMAAJ (no graphics though) https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111457642
[3.159] Debate about logical analysis: Wundt proposes recursive subject-predicate pairing as a model for though and language: note that this is the logical tradition of the terminology, not the grammatical!
[3.160] Wundt’s discussion of the ‘old grammarians’ (Wundt 1900: 222-224), arguing against the ‘copula-theory’
[3.161] See (Picardi 2022: 24-26) for the relation with Frege
[3.162] See (Dittrich 1902) for a direct following of Wundt in Germany, otherwise nothing found
[3.163] Alfred Dwight Sheffield (Sheffield 1912: 50-51) Grammar and Thinking (citing Wundt prominently) Brittain (1973:204) says “linguists seem to have been unaware of his work”. This is not true!
[3.164] also Alfred Dwight Sheffield (Sheffield 1929: 53)
[3.165] morphology-formula (Sapir 1921)
[3.166] (Bloomfield 1933: 161)
[3.167] (Bloomfield 1914: 60-61), cited in Percival (1976:235) clearly thinks about binary branching. Also note the Wundt-inspired psychological reasoning.
[3.168] (Ajdukiewicz 1935)
[3.169] (Pike 1943: 70), citing bloomfield
[3.170] (Wells 1947: 84)
[3.171] Francis Mikuš from Ljubljana, cf (Graffi 2001: 201)
[3.172] trees following Wundt (Mikuš 1947: 37), includes “chines boxes” diagram, without attribution.
[3.173] boxes: (Mikuš 1952: 452, 457, 460), numbers (Mikuš 1952: 453, 458), spiral (Mikuš 1952: 461), boxes with connections (Mikuš 1952: 462)
[3.174] reanalysis of Sapirs symbolic representation, boxes on page 20 (Mikuš 1953: 20)
[3.175] nothing in 1946 version! (Nida 1946)
[3.176] sentence: (Nida 1949: 87) hierarchical morphological structure p.101, both 105
[3.177] book is later called Structural Linguistics (Harris 1963[1951])
[3.178] examples of IC: my most recent plays closed down (p278-279) analysed as follows, with number of dots representing separation. Reversed bloomfield approach: more dots are “larger” separation
[3.179] T :: D . A : N² :. -s :.: V¹ . Pb : -ed
[3.180] Complete rewrite rules (in Chomskian format, harris writes them from right to left). Note the strange early past suffix insertion. This system was already introduced in (Harris 1946), but wihtout the notation for a complete sentence
[3.181] Utterance → N⁴V⁴ N⁴ → TN³ N³ → N²-s N² → AN² A → DA V⁴ → V²-ed V² → V¹Pb
[3.182] Insertion
[3.183] T = my D = most A = recent N² = play V¹ = close Pb = down
[3.184] (Fries 1952: 272) (Pike is a student of Fries, Fries might have been inspired by Pike 1943 here)
[3.185] (Bar-Hillel 1953) english explanation of (Ajdukiewicz 1935)
[3.186] (Gleason 1955: 129-131)
[3.187] second edition from 1961 extended, Chomsky mentioned in introduction (Gleason 1961). Includes generation and transformation. But still the old IC-stuff as well (Gleason 1961)
[3.188] (Gleason 1965) very open description: Ch7 on Reed/Kellog and other approaches, but also many chapters on TGG
[3.189] (Chomsky 1955)
[3.190] Chomsky (1955: 277) Note the reversal of the usage of dashes, here more alike to brackets. The dashes seem to represent some kind of intonation structure, though.
[3.191] Chomsky (1955: 316b) Similar to Pike/Fries/Hockett
[3.192] Chomsky cites Bar-Hillel (1953: 57)
[3.193] also in (Chomsky 1975: 229, 258)
[3.194] (Hockett 1958: 152)
[3.195] (Francis 1958) chinese boxes. Stewart (Stewart 1976) reports from personal communication with Francis, that the chinese-box diagrams were inspired on the graphical display in (Fries 1952)
[3.196] (Nida 1960) added images to 1943 dissertation, which did not have images
[3.197] Nida (1973[1960]) writes his thesis in 1943, which is published in 1960. There do not seem to be trees in his thesis, but he Immediate Constituents might imply trees (but difficult to follow). In the 1960 edition he adds a long list of trees. But this is of course after Chomsky 1957.
[3.198] In the preface of the 1943: 30 dissertation he cited Sheffield 1912 (though not with respect to structural analysis)
[3.199] Note the combination of dependency and constituency!
[3.200] (Gammon 1963), completely ignoring chomsky?
[3.201] https://books.google.de/books?id=YskUAAAAIAAJ https://archive.org/details/towardsscienceof0000euge
[3.202] summary of different equivalent graphics (Nida 1964: 58-62)
[3.203] chinese boxes (Stageberg 1965: 263) Fries-scheme of IC (Stageberg 1965: 263-273)
[3.204] added chapter on TGG from different author. seems to be added late in the process of making the book.
[3.205] https://lccn.loc.gov/10028710 https://lccn.loc.gov/10028727 https://lccn.loc.gov/10033615
[3.206] (Brittain 1973: 31)
[3.207] completely idiosyncratic system of letters and numbers. No references whatsoever (Roberts 1956).
[3.208] (Smith 1957) idiosyncratic system with symbols
[4.1] Note tables in (Becker 1830: 253-261)
[4.2] “construction” in table-like manner like Becker 1830 (James 1847: 133-134)
[4.3] Morell (Morell 1857[1868]; Morell 1852) is based on Becker 1829! But simplifies into tables, and removes ordering. Tables become widespread in GB
[4.4] table p24-25, complex sentence p41
[4.5] William Swinton (1833-1892) in USA (Professor of the English language in the University of California??? Preface written in New York), but no diagram - more likely britisch tradition
[4.6] tabular based on Becker (Swinton 1872: 154)
[4.7] Swinton (1872: iii-iv) “The introduction, some thirty years ago, of the method of Sentential Analysis, devised by the German philologist Becker, and adapted to American school use in the meritorious works of Professor Greene and others, marks the only considerable innovation, in this country, on the Murray system.”
[4.8] He writes many versions of grammars and textbooks, but never uses diagramming. He cites many GB-grammars (p. viii), so this work seems to belong more in that tradition
[4.9] Also USA, but only using tables (Morris 1877: 100-111)
[4.10] first edition (Mason 1858) no tables 25th edition (Mason 1881: 183-185) with tables (fold-out appendix after p268)
[4.11] long-form analysis like becker (Fitch 1881: 268-269)
[4.12] graphical display “mapping” (Meiklejohn 1882: 20, 22, 147, 168-169)
[4.13] “mapping out” = diagramming? (Meiklejohn 1886: 92, 97-98) “continuous analysis = Becker-style? (Meiklejohn 1886: 99) tables p.98
[4.14] table (Cooper & Sonnenschein 1891: 9) indentation (Cooper & Sonnenschein 1891: 25)
[4.15] https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/006151225 table analysis p212, large example p220
[4.16] many different books and version, first collaboration from 1873
[4.17] tables (Nesfield 1898: 105-117)
[4.18] Charles Talbut Onions (1873-1965) Many editions, at least untill 1932
[4.19] tables and indented complex sentences (Onions 1904)
[4.20] Describing schools in germany
[4.21] Kern is cited (p558) graphical display is presented as “normal” in Germany, example (Dale 1897: 557)
[4.22] “schema” = diagramming? (Adamson 1907: 176-177)
[4.23] cites fitch (p. 175), but does not cite inspiration for “schema”
[4.24] diagramming? (Palser & Lewis 1923) Also used in “Memorandum on the teaching of English” (1927: page 8)
[4.25] “The graphic method of analysis we have used for many years, with modifications from time to time as experience required.” (p6)
[4.26] citing: Adamson and Dale (citing Kern!)
[4.27] own graphics
[4.28] Fry (Fry 1925: 12) commenting on Palser/Lewis: “all the chief features of my method have been used by myself and a few of my pupils for something like twenty years.”
[4.29] cited by Jespersen
[5.1] grammaire generale (Sicard 1798) numbers p. 29 “chiffre”, but only one example?
[5.2] Cours d’instruction (Sicard 1799) numbers? p 64-71, 101, 112, 178, 332-333. graphics: 89
[5.3] (Gaultier 1819) using colors and circles to teach word classes to small kids
[5.4] (Tesnière 1934), see also (Mazziotta 2019), from “Comment construire une syntaxe”
[5.5] Tesniere knew about Fry (Fry 1925), documented in (Mazziotta & Kahane 2024), uses numbers like Sicard
[5.6] first edition not available in Germany? see scans
[5.7] Original from 1939, but not diagrams. Takes over Bonnard-style diagrams in 25th edition (1959)
[6.1] Severin Carl Olfert Fischer Broberg (1822-1900)
[6.2] indented table with sentence structure (Broberg 1882: 95-102)
[6.3] In the second part of a review of a grammatical text book he proposes a graphical display for the blackboard (Lindwall 1903)
[6.4] Karl Frederik Natanael Beckman (1868-1946) professor of Swedish language at Gothenburg University (Beckman 1904: 194-198, 202, 219)
[6.5] cites Kern and Lindwall (p. 273)
[6.6] his school textbooks do not seem to have been noticed?
[6.7] influence ??? of Adolf Gotthard Noreen (1854-1925) professor at Uppsala University (Doreen 1906: 32-33) Hierarchical morphology with dashes:
[6.8] Exempel på dylika ord äro följande, i hvilka jag låter den primära sammansättningens leder skiljas af ett bindestreck, den sekundäras af två osv.
[6.9] Sekundära: salt-sjö–fisk, förgät-mig-ej–krans, kompani–trum-slagare, bo-lags–ord-förande, upp-och-ned–vänd, svarta-hafs–flottan.
[6.10] Tertiära: brand-stods–bo-lags—ord-förande, fattig—sopp-koknings–in-rättning, infanteri-regements–kompani—trum-slagare–pojkar, högsta–dom-stols—ledamöterna, metallarbetare–fack-förenings—samman-träde.
[6.11] Kvartära: sprit-handels—aktie–bo-lags—-ord-förande, kropps-arbetare–för-säkrings—kommitté—-ut-låtandet.
[6.12] Examples of such words are the following, in which I let the primary compound be separated by a hyphen, the secondary by two, etc.
[6.13] Secondary: salt-sea–fish, forget-me-not wreath, company–drummer, chairman of housing association, upside-down–turned, black-sea–fleet.
[6.14] Tertiary: fire-resistance–housing-law—chairman, poor—soup-boiling–in-rectification, infantry regiments–company—drummer–boys, the members of the Supreme Court, metalworkers–union—meeting.
[6.15] Quaternary: spirit-trading—shares–community-laws—-speaker, body-worker–for-insurance—committee—-the-statement.
[6.16] Notion rang ‘rank’, different levels. First attempt at symbolic representation (Jespersen 1913: 32-33), further develop in 1937
[6.17] (Brøndal 1928) System of categories for morphology, build from limited set of primitives. complex schema in appendix
[6.18] syntax in morfologi of syntax (1932) (cf. Hallon 1989: 79-155) cites kern, sheffield, wundt (Brøndal 1932)
[6.19] (Togeby 1989: 109) gives an actual example how a sentence analysis might look like in Brøndal’s system
[6.20] Aage Hansen (1894-1983) studied with Jespersen in Copenhagen. Book is dedicated to him.
[6.21] various graphics (Hansen 1933), mentioned in the preface of Jespersen 1937 (Jespersen 1937)
[6.22] stupid graphic in (Hjelmslev 1928: 138)
[6.23] arrows on (Hjelmslev 1972: 52-53), but not real language analysis, just an example of interdependence of elements in language
[6.24] lots of graphics, but only paradigms, structure, illustration
[6.25] symbolic analysis, (Jespersen 1937: 83) citing a graphic from (Fry 1925)
[6.26] compares his analysis with Stöhr (Stöhr 1898), Sapir (morpheme analysis), maurice bologne, Brøndal
[6.27] discussion in (Cigana 2020)
[6.28] Emil Nestor Setälä (Setälä & Nieminen 1946: 68), cited by (Thümmel 1993: 139)
[6.29] There are many earlier editions! Original of both authors together from 1939? https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaarlo_Nieminen_(kielitieteilijä)
[6.30] “The mutual relations of the parts of a sentence can be illustrated by means of a drawing. If we mark the subject with a thick vertical line, the predicate with a thick horizontal line extending from it, the conditions of each with thinner lines directed diagonally, and the conditions of the conditions again with lines directed diagonally.”
[6.31] no graphics in 1898: https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fd2015-00009354
[6.32] Feldertheorie (Diderichsen 1957[1946]), giving nested schema like hansen (Diderichsen 1957[1946]: 146) does not cite drach (1935) uses term “chinese boxes”
[6.33] details about history: https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sætningsskema
[6.34] He knew about Hansen, but never cited it. acknowledgement in 1964 Festschrift for Hansen (Diderichsen 1966: 364).
[7.1] Marius Hendrikus Flothuis (1873-1950), teacher of german language and literature in Amsterdam. Father of composer Marius Flothuis. https://archief.amsterdam/indexen/deeds/98533401-2df7-56a3-e053-b784100ade19?person=98533401-2df8-56a3-e053-b784100ade19
[7.2] Adds idiosyncratic diagrams of subordinate clauses to the end of his grammar. cites Kern and Wundt, but his graphics do not look like theirs (Flothuis 1930)
[7.3] only graphical display of clause subordination. cites examples from (Kern 1884) and (Flothuis 1930), does not add anything new (Heemstra 1947: 76-79)
[7.4] Albert W. de Groot (1892-1963)
[7.5] brackets (Groot 1949a: 10), numbers and incidental brackets (Groot 1949b: 117, 156, 184, 230)
[8.1] (Lugebil 1883)
[8.2] Jan Gebauer (1838-1907) (Gebauer 1900: 237, 249, 257, 265) hierarchical bracketing
[8.3] (Novotná 2012; Novotná 2006; Vernerová 2019; Panevová 2024)
[8.4] Tadeusz Lehr-Spławiński (1891-1965) Roman Kubiński (1886-1957)
[8.5] https://gramatyki.uw.edu.pl/book/544?lang=en
[8.6] first edition 1927, cited here in 2nd edition (Lehr-Spławiński & Kubiński 1928: 150) single tree-image of sentence
[8.7] More on polish grammars, but apparaently no other graphics: https://gramatyki-uw-edu-pl.translate.goog/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp
[8.8] Version from 1898 does not have graphics: https://books.google.de/books?id=h1M5AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA122
[8.9] 1923: 115 version does have graphic http://e-heritage.ru/Book/10075936
[8.10] other version 1923: 167 with graphic https://www.prlib.ru/item/363130
[8.11] (Thümmel 1993: 171) cites a version from 1906: 127
[8.12] Ušakov et al., 1929, 3rd part, pp. 6–7, and 4th part, p. 5; Krjučkov and Svetlïev, 1936, pp. 6–7